-X
Opinion
Nelxraskan
Wednesday, March 2,1994
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska Lincoln
Jeremy Fitzpatrick
Rainbow Rowell. ..
Adeana Left in. .. .
Todd Cooper.
JeffZeleny.
Sarah Ducy.
WiUian Lauer....
.Editor, 472-1766
.Opinion Page Editor
.Managing Editor
.. . Sports Editor
.Associate News Editor
Arts & Entertainment Editor
.Senior Photographer
h 1)1 IOKI \l
NATO delivers
Airs trikes against Serbs showed resolve
During the past 23 months of war in the former Yugoslavia.
NATO has frequently threatened to intervene to support
U.N. resolutions.
Beginning last week, the United States and its allies told
Bosnian Serbs — who have military control over 70 percent of
the area — that NATO would use airstrikes to stop fighting in
designated areas.
When six Serb planes were found bombing in a no-fly zone and
refused to respond to three warnings, U.S. F-16 fighter jets
brought four Serb planes down.
Although any act of violence is horrible, NATO forces acted
wisely. To show strength and resolve, it was important that
NATO stood behind its threats.
The fighting groups will take NATO seriously only if the
alliance stands firm. Airstrikes should continue to be used to
enforce U.N. resolutions.
Because NATO has said it will stop fighting from any side, the
strikes do not show support for any group. And the strikes can be
used to show NATO’s commitment to a cease-fire without greatly
risking U.S. troops.
If handled with care, the strikes can be carried out without
dragging th^United States into further military involvement.
By earning the respect of the Bosnian Serbs, Croats and
Bosnian Muslims, perhaps NATO may be able to help bring
much-needed peace to the area.
() I III Its- \ ll w
Watch your head. The United States and Japan once again
arc throwing rotten eggs at each other over the latest
trade dispute. Unfortunately the citizens on both sides
arc in the crossfire.
The latest disagreement came after trade talks between the
world’s two largest trading nations ended abruptly. Both countries
arc right, but both countries are also wrong.
The United States claims that Japan unfairly restricts trade into
their island nation. This is largely true. Subsidies and trade
restrictions put rice prices seven times higher in Japan than in the
United States. Similar restrictions hold true for a variety of goods
ranging from vegetables to electronics.
However, the United States is wrong to demand that Japan buy
certain numbers of cars, parts and other goods. Forced trade is
really not trade at all. The best example involves car sales to
Japan. When President Bush went to Japan with the Big Three
automotive presidents, they demanded Japan buy more U.S. cars.
Too bad the U.S. companies were not building any with the
steering wheel on the right side. Otherwise the Japanese might
want them.
For a nation based on trade, Japan should not have such
extreme trade barriers. However, they should not be expected to
abide by the forced trade guidelines that the United States is
demanding.
Both sides need to adjust their position and move closer to
“true” free trade. This means a reduction or elimination of trade
barriers by both sides, as well as elimination of the so-called
“numerical indicators” that the United States demands.
— University Daily Kansan
— University of Kansas
I i>i inui \i I'm k \
StafT editorials represent the official policy of the Spring 1944 Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set
by the Daily Nebraskan lulitorial Board. Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the
university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents, luiitorial columns represent
the opinion of the author The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan They establish the UNL
Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of
its students.
1.1 INK I'ni K \
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others
Letters will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity, originality, timeliness and space
available. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject all material submitted Readers
also arc welcome to submit material as guest opinions. The editor decides whether material
should run as a guest opinion. Letters and guest opinions sent to the newspaper become the
property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned Anonymous submissions will not be
published Letters should included the author's name, year in school, major and group
alTtliation, if any Requests to withhold names will not be granted Submit material to the Daily
Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
WMENft BIEH TiXO
AMT TUI IOK> Of CM Vtlfc SENtm
AND VCVE AIR9SN «I AJUAUK VCW
NOltVK)NlU\U.
-r /
AYCROU fctACON XNWM ©94
V
FM SUSPICION OP k MOLE
Sam KKi’UKLD
Chilly? Just the facts, ma’am
According lo a report by the
UNL chapter of the American
Association of University Pro
fessors, the climate for women in the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Col
lege of Business Administration is
“chilly.” Evaluation procedures are
unfair, pay is unequal, women arc
treated rudely and harassed, and a
general atmosphere of sexism pre
vails. It sounds like a Tailhook con
vention in the making.
On Feb. 19, the regents heard the
report, drawn up by a committee
chaired by UNL sociology professor
Dr. Helen Moore. Amazingly, UNL
officials, including Chancellor Gra
ham Spanicr, did not immediately
begin groveling on the floor, begging
forgiveness and promising a task force
to look into the matter.
They don’t need to study the accu
racy of the charges. What UNL ought
to do is look at the people bringing the
charges and their ulterior motives in
doing so.
ThcAAUP s Committee W report
is an unsolicited effort, which Moore
claimed was derived from forums at
UNL during the past several years.
The “sources” in the report alleging
the misconduct were anonymous, but
Moore said they were not made by
only one or two people. Women in
CBA had complained before but were
ignored. Hardly a slam-dunk case.
The intellectual vacuum at the heart
of the report, and the argument in
general, is not so surprising when one
considers just what the AAUP really
is. Dr. John Silber, former president of
Boston University and candidate for
governor of Massachusetts in 1990,
called the AAUP nothing more than a
white-collar trade union. In his 1989
book “Shooting Straight,” Silber
chronicled the antics of the AAUP,
particularly its bastardization of the
tenure process to create a closed, un ion
shop mentality in faculty departments.
The AAUP adopted an adversarial
No, being truly enlightened, they
prepare reports in a cliquish
atmosphere on how they perceive
white men are oppressing them.
stance against university administra
tors analogous to the militant union
ism of the AFL-CIO’s war with man
agement in the private sector. As such,
Silber claims, the AAUP lost any sort
of moral authority to speak for its
members. It isn’t even on record as
prohibiting the falsification of evi
dence, out of a naive belief that such
things simply aren’t done. It is an
open invitation to academic fraud.
Moral, not to mention tactual,
emptiness is all over the Committee
W report. Moore and her four col
leagues who prepared the report were
all women. If UNL took her allega
tions seriously and appointed an all
male committee to respond to the
charges, would Committee W accept
it? No! It would be a classic case of
“the old boys’ network” pulling to
gether to cover its collective butt.
Moore and Committee W are part
of an “old girls’ network,” a subgroup
of the myriad prejudice pests who
imagine sexism, racism and all other
-isms to be lurking in every single
nook and cranny of our society. They
don’t oppress others in a cliquish at
mosphere like white men do. No, be
ing truly enlightened, they prepare
reports in a cliquish atmosphere on
how they perceive white men arc op
pressing them.
Factually. the report is at odds with
reality. Two professors from CBA
contradicted the report at the regents’
meeting. Professor Roberta Schini
called the atmosphere at CBA “the
most collegial and supportive" that
she had ever been m. Nancy Mara,
assistant dean, also disagreed with the
general tenor of the report calling
CBA men sexist. Joan Leitzel, vice
chancellor for academic affairs, told
the regents that women were angered
by the distorted view of CBA.
This has always been the problem
with organizations that claim to speak
for everybody in a particular group—
the National Organization for Wom
en, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People or
the Mexican-Amcrican Student As
sociation. They begin with perhaps
laudable goals, but as these goals arc
ac com pi i shed. t hey need to j ust i fy t he i r
continued existence.
So, with real discrimination on the
wane, they have to invent it. Only this
discrimination is so subtle and ubiqui
tous that most people don’t recognize
it—such as, say, a“chilly” climate. Is
it any coincidence that this report was
presented at the end of Rape/Sexual
Harassment Awareness Week?
Sometimes university administra
tors can be cowed into submission by
this tactic; this time they weren’t,
Until CBA women themselves
prove real discrimination, which seems
unlikely, Moore and her colleagues
should go back to what they’re sup
posed to be doing at this university—
teaching — and not write dubious
reports at the behest of outside mili
tants.
Kepfleid i« ■ graduate student ia history
aad a Daily Nebraska* coluaiaist.
Students for Dave
It’s true, I, Gary Doyle, have too
much time on my hands. Why else
would I do something as trivial as
running David Lettcrman, a nonstu
dent, for an Association of Students of
the University of Nebraska election?
The reason is simple: It’s a joke. Com
edy.
I’m graduating, so it really docsn t
matter to me who gets elected. It’s all
the same year after year anyway. Sure,
the names and faces change, but the
ideas and the talking have been heard
over and over again. Not once have we
seen any long-term plans for parking,
safety or creating a multicultural at
mosphere on campus. Where are the
solutions? I don’t expect short-term
answers. These are long-term prob
lems that require long-term planning.
If ASUN is truly a well-running
I .i 111 us 10 1111 Cm I OK
student government machine, then why
is it that they only have the power to
recommend? When are they going to
slop talking and start doing?
I’m amazed anyone cares I’m run
ning Dave for president. Yet, already
I’ve done interviews with radio sta
tions across the country.
It’s truly a sad day when staunch
ASUN supporters arc so scared and
insecure that when the status auo is
attacked, they must lash out with per
sonal attacks, rather than deal with
the situation in a constructive and
positive manner. Obviously there arc
problems with student government,
or else there wouldn’t be only one
party with a complete ticket and an
other party that can’t even participate
in debates.
My intent is not and has never been
to make a mockery of the ASUN elec
tions, but instead to increase partici
pation and awareness on campus .Isn’t
that what every student leader wants?
A 14 percent voter turnout at an insti
tute of higher learning is horrendous.
If it takes something like running
Dave for president to increase student
participation in these elections, then
so be it.
. Unfortunately, the other student
leaders on campus don’t use their
ability to look at all sides of the issue
before they jump to conclusions. I
guarantee there will be a much stron
ger selection of candidates next year
because of what has transpired so far
during this election.
I urge every student who reads this
to go to the polls and vote on March 9.
Whether you’re for VISION, RE
SUME, LETTUCE or Dave doesn’t
matter. Let your voice be heard.
Gary Doyle
senior
management