Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 28, 1994)
Opinion Nebraskan Monday, March 28,1994 Nebraskan Editorial Board University of Nebraska Lincoln Jeremy Fitzpatrick Rainbow Rowell Adeana Left in. Todd Cooper,, Jeff Zeleny. Sarah Daev William Lauer Editor, 472-1766 Opinion Page Editor Managing Editor Sports Editor Associate News Editor -Ills A Entertainment Editor Senior Photographer EDI IOKI VI, Costly construction Fund limit should cancel proposed college Faced with a tough decision on creating an independent engineering college at UNO, University of Nebraska Presi dent Dennis Smith has decided to study the issue further. Smith has ordered an internal review by a university task force to devise a strategic plan for engineering needs in Nebraska. The strategic plan will include a development plan for an independent engineering college at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. The report will take six months to complete. When it is fin ished, Smith will recommend to the NU Board of Regents what changes should be made in NU's engineering programs. The best recommendation both the university task force and Smith could make is to forget the idea of an independent engi neering college at UNO. NU simply cannot afford the expense of two engineering colleges within an hour of each other. If the engineering program at UNL lacked quality, it would be different. But UNL's program can provide adequately for the needs of Nebraska's engineering students. If NU had an unlimited amount of funding available, every college in the university system could have an independent engineering program. But the university will likely be facing tough budget cuts next year. NU cannot afford to start new, expensive projects when it's going to be fighting just to keep those it has. This is not an issue pitting the University of Ncbraska-Lincoln against UNO or Lincoln against Omaha. This is an issue about money. Unless the University of Nebraska can find the revenue to build and sustain a separate engineering college, it should not commit to one. If NU commits to programs it cannot afford, other programs will have to be cut. And cutting essential programs to fund ones that arc necessary is wrong. Snuff it out House should pass anti-smoking measure It’s a free country. In the United States, for the most part, we can do as we please, even if it harms us. For example, although cigarette smoking is harmful, it is legal. Our freedom stops, however, where someone else’s begins. We have the right to drive, but we don't have the right to drive over someone else. Similarly, we should not have the right to smoke cigarettes in areas where nonsmokers could inhale the smoke. This secondhand smoke is an unnecessary health threat for nonsmokers. A House subcommittee will soon vote on a broad anti-smoking bill that would make virtually all commercial buildings, including bars, restaurants and workplaces, smoke-free. Basically, individu als would be able to smoke only outdoors or in their own homes. This bill should be passed. Although this legislation may be hard to enforce, it is neces sary. There can no longer be any doubt that cigarette smoke is dangerous for everyone who inhales it. It is a crime against nonsmokers to subject them to smoke against their will. Banning smoking in public areas would surely inconvenience smokers, but this inconvenience docs not compare to the health risks of secondhand smoke. KmiouiM Polio Stall'editorials represent the official policy of the Spring IW4 Daily Nebraskan Policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents. Editorial columns represent the opinion of the author. The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan They establish the LINE 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 I.I I 11 U 1*01 l< \ 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 are 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 affiliation, 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 mTwrnwuM'rtR FIVED AMOTOUTD throw ounut /wens court mm iDQicpm<m,wtto\ ^KswmmwV M/oo^wuomwt 1U./WWERCAW ME SEVERE FEELWiS OF QUIff/ VlMCttLED TOAREUfWlORAL PKORRER AMR OF QOUKE,TEMPORARY ftMNVFY,,. ©°» tuui W ROQfflNS YOUNCiOPPENDtRS ISN'T PROCEP IN AMERICA. Lki ikus 10 ink Editor Prairie dogs I have read with great interest re sponses to Paul Kocster's column or prairie dogs (DN. Feb. 2X. 1 ) bv Jeff Lutkehus (DN. March 0. 1W4) and Will Williams (DN, March 15. 1004). Their knowledge of the prairie dog ecosystem is obviously impover ished. Lutkehus is right: Prairie dogs have always existed in smaller num bers than black-footed ferrets. How ever, ferrets cannot exist without prai rie dogs. They live in prairie dog towns and feed almost exclusively on 1 ive prairie dogs. (They are predators, not scavengers.) Arguing that ferrets are not adversely affected by reduced prairie dog populations is ludicrous. Research throughout the stale of Ne braska, which has included aerial photography and ground truthing to estimate prairie dog densities, indi cates this state does not have a com plex of prairie dogs capable of sup porting a black-fooled ferret popula tion. Yet Williams wants us to believe the state is overrun with wildlife. I’ve spent five years working in prairie dog towns in Nebraska study ing burrowing owls, a species highly associated with prairie dog communi ties. Burrowing owl populations have declined by almost 50 percent, and this decline is assoc laled w ith dramat ic declines in prairie dog populations due to prairie dog control. The prairie dog ecosystem hosts a diversity of wildlife species, several of which — including the black-footed ferret, swift fox, mountain plover, ferruginous hawk and golden eagle — are endan ge red. l h re at e ned or spec les o f spec i al concern. oeingasiuuemoi agricultural eco nomics, I was surprised thal Williams did not discuss the economics of prai rie dog control or the potential bene fits of prairie dog towns to livestock. Research on prairie dog control has shown that it is not economically via ble; in other words, the cost of control ling prairie dogs is higher than any "damage” they do. In addition, studies have shown that although prairie dogs reduce the quantity, their constant clipping of the vegetation increases nutrient quality, and livestock prefer entially feed in these areas. Williams’ argument that cattle grazing has dramatically benefited the Sandhills by keeping the vegetation short and thus preventing wildfires that would “ravage” the land repre sents a tremendous ignorance of the basic ecology of the prairie ecosystem. Prairies cvol ved under fire and benefit from fire. It is the suppression of fire that has damaged the system. I do believe that most ranchers and farmers care about the environment. However, we need to make farming and ranching practices profitable with in the context of the native grassland ecosystem. Martha Desmond graduate student forestry, fisheries and wildlife James Mehsling/DN Whitewater I have read or heard every faet or theory on Whitewater. For the last month, I have been very confused on who is right or wrong. However, an article in Time regarding Whitewater opened up the light for me. Ann Blackmun. a reporter, stated. "The hallmark of Hillary’s staff seems lobe an intense loyalty that borderson para noia, and a determination toguard her privacy at all costs. The very intensity of loyally, in fact, may have done her harm.” Hillary's advisers are surrounded by a legal culture, not a political cul ture. As a lawyer. I can read a lot out of a simple piece of paper. We are trained to cover every angle. Some times this train of thinking can back fire. It can turn a single piece of evidence or transaction into some thing more than it really is. This train of thinking coupled with paranoia to protect Hillary would allow this staff to shred documents that may not be incriminating or interfere with an in vestigation, to ensure the first lady’s privacy. Simply put. her staff messed up big time. Their over/ealous efforts to alleviate suspicion about Whitewater actually increased suspi cion. Remember, paranoid people do strange things (c.g. Watergate). It’s not a secret that this adminis tration is a circus when it comes to appointing advisers and officehold ers. The Clintons have allowed an incompetent staff to use Arkansas tac tics to straighten out a White House mess. Nussbaum and Hubbel’s resig nations are an attempt to get rid of the “amateurs” and get somebody to straighten out the mess. Thanks to an inept staff, the Democrats have opened the door for Republican attacks. But neither party is right. The Democrats argue that ihis is a Republican plot to discredit the Clinton administration. Republicans are screaming for con gressional hearings to grill the Clintons. Actually, all this boils down to an incompetent Democratic staff creating suspicion to justify a Repub lican witch hunt. This will make a hell of a movie. Bryson Bartels Lincoln ‘Misleading' reporting I would like to thank and congrat ulate the University Program Council and the Women’s Center for sponsor ing the Schlafly-Weddington debate March 15 as part of Women’s Week. I regret the Daily Nebraskan could not cover the event in an impartial and accurate fashion. Todd Neeley’s arti cle on the debate contained some very misleading mis-paraphrases. The article stated, “Schlafly said the majority of women in the United Stales were not willing to pay for an abortion.” This makes it sound like she said most women wanted some one else to pay for their abortions. She actually said most women in the Unit ed States were not willing to pay for each and every other woman’s abor tion no matter what their personal beliefs on abortion. The article also slated. “Weddington said she thought a leg acy was created by Roe vs. Wade. But now, she said the fight had shifted to the right to choose an abortion.” Weddington actually said the light had shifted to the “availability” of abortions. Roe vs. Wade was a court decision on the right to choose to have an abortion, so how could the fight have shifted to exactly what it had been focused on? The funniest (and most tragic, in my opinion) mis-paraphrasing in the article was the sentence about how Schlafly said, “the pro-choice move ment is part of a feminist conspiracy.” Either Neeley was trying to be ex tremely politically correct, or he was inflecting his ideology on Schlafly. She did not use the term “pro-choice” at all during the debate. She never used the term “feminist conspiracy” in the debate. She said leading femi nists consider abortion to be their “premier agenda.” Never was “con spiracy” paired with “feminist” in the way the article stated. I hope in the future the DN will be more accurate and unbiased in its reporting. Ann Elizabeth Wcidc freshman mechanical engineering
