Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 31, 1994)
OPINION Netjraskan Thursday, March 31,1994 Nebraskan Editorial Board University of Nebraska Lincoln Jeremy Fitzpatrick Rainbow Rowell Acleana Left in Todd Cooper JeffZeleny Sarah Duey William Lauer Editor. 472-176b Opinion Page Editor Managing Editor Sports Editor Associate News Editor Arts t£ Entertainment Editor .Senior Photographer EDI I OKI VI. No hazing allowed Greeks must show maturity, stop practice If Gov. Ben Nelson signs a bill unanimously approved Wednesday in the Legislature, hazing will be considered a crime in Nebraska —a violation of state law. With this signature, life on this campus should change. When Jeffrey Knoll fell from the third floor of Phi Gamma Delta Frater nity, the entire state was forced to re-examine hazing in the greck system. Most people agreed that changes should be made. Administra tors, lawmakers and leaders in the greck system came forward to say that hazing could no longer be accepted on this campus as an unavoidable part of greck life. These concerns culminated in LB 1129, proposed by Sen. Gerald Matzkc of Sidney. This bill, which will probably become law, cannot be ignored. With its passing, fraternities and sororities must take special care, not just to prevent an incident like Knoll’s injury but also to avoid criminal prosecution. Fraternity and sorority leaders should continue to take the lead. They must let their chapters know that hazing will not be tolerated. Another serious offense will again draw the entire state’s attention and could jeopardize the existence of the greck system on campus. Members must show they arc mature enough to reject long-standing, dangerous attitudes about hazing and alcohol abuse. Their cooperation with this bill will make the greck system and the University of Ncbraska-Lincoln stronger. Call Bill Students should fight higher ticket prices The University of Ncbraska-Lincoln's athletic department has gotten into the habit of making decisions that show disregard for students. Last year, students were moved out of the stadium’s best scats so boosters and others could have them. This year, the athletic department has decided to charge $73 or a little more than SI2 a game — for student season tickets. That’s a 50 percent increase per game over last season. UNL Athletic Director Bill Byrne needs to get his priorities straight. Memorial Stadium was not created for the athletic department’s boosters. It was created first for the students who play football and for the students who enjoy watching them play. It’s unfortunate that the number of student season-ticket holders has declined since 1983. But after an exciting season last year and the possibility of a national championship this year, that trend probably would have reversed Not anymore. Raising ticket prices isn't going to send students to the ticket office. Maybe that’s what the athletic department wants. They might be hoping students will purchase fewer tickets so they can be sold at full price. That is unlikely, but Byrne seems to be intent on taking students out of football games. Moving students out of the stadium’s best scats and then charging them more money will accomplish just that. Apparently, the athletic department isn’t expecting students to respond. Cindy Bell, athletic ticket office manager, said she only expected about 10 calls. Bell shouldn’t get any calls. But Bill Byrne — who is ultimately responsible for this decision — should. If you enjoy paying more for worse scats, we encourage you to call Byrne at 472-3644 and thank him for putting students first. Kl)l lokl \l IN>1 l( \ Slall editorials represent the official policy of the Spring 1004 Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board Editorials do not necessarily relied the views of the university, its employees, (he students or the NU Board of Regents Editorial columns represent the opinion of the author The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNE Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper According to policy set by the regents, rcsponsibilityfor (he editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its students I f INK IN>1 It \ The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others betters will be selected for publication on the hasis 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 mil as a guest opinion Letters and guest opinions sent to the newspaper become (he properly oldie Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned Anonymous submissions will not be published Letters should included (lie author's name, year in school, major and group aOiliation, if any Requests to withhold names will not be granted Submit material to (he Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St , Lincoln, Neb (>X5XX 044X tpe\wT\ k wcmm JML 7= TUt^W'S.l SWwSNfi! m 'rosmym'i ^♦AkitoN Km i I !<> in I ill Km iok Editor’s note: The following letter contained an errorwhenitwasorigi nallv printed in the March 28 Daily Nebraskan. Prairie dogs I have read with great interest the recent responses to Paul Kocstcr’s column on prairie dogs(DN, Feb. 28, 1994) by Jcfi'Lutkehus (DN, March 9, 1994) and William Williams (DN, March 15,1994). Their knowledge of the prairie dog ecosystem is obviously impoverished. Lutkchus is right; prairie dogs have always existed in higher numbers than black-footed ferrets. However, ferrets can not exist without prairie dogs. They live in prairie dog towns and feed almost cxclusivclyon I ivcprairic dogs. (They are predators, not scavengers.) Arguing that ferrets arc not ad versely affected by reduced prairie dog populations is ludicrous. Research throughout the state of Nebraska, which has included aerjal surveys, aerial photography and ground truthing toestimate prairie dog densi ties, indicates that this state docs not currently have a complex of prairie dog towns capable of supporting a black-footed ferret population. Yet, Will iams wants us to believe this state is overrun with wildlife. I’ve spent five 6)ars 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 associated with dra matic declines in prairie dog popula tions due to prairie dog control. The prairie dog ecosystem hosts a diver sity of wildlife species, several of which, including the black-footed fer ret, swift fox, mountain plover, fer ruginous hawk and golden eagle, are endangered, threatened or species of special concern. Being a student of agricultural eco nomics, I was surprised that Williams did not discuss the economics of prai rie dog control or the potential ben efits of prairie dog towns to livestock. Research on prairie dog control has shown that it is not economically vi able. In other words, the cost of con trolling prairie dogs is higher than any “damage” they do. In addition, studies have shown that, although prairie dogs reduce the quantity of vegetation, their constant clipping of the vegetation increases nutrient qual ity, and livestock preferentially feed in these areas. Williams’ argument that cattle grazing has dramatically benefited the Sandhills ecosystem by keeping the vegetation short, and thus preventing wildfires that would “ravage” the land, represents a tremendous ignorance of the basic ecology ofthe prairie ecosys tem. Prairies evolved under fire and benefit from fire. It is the suppression of fire that has damaged this system. I do believe that most farmers and ranchers care about the environment. However, we need to make farming and ranching practices profitable within the context of the native grass land ecosystem. Martha Desmond graduate student forestry, fisheries and wildlife James Mehsling/DN ‘Propaganda' In the March 28 issue of the Daily Nebraskan, an advertisement appeared on page 11 in the classified section, encouraging us to turn on our radios and “Listen to Freedom.” This“Voicc of Freedom” is a man named Earns! Zundel. For those of you who missed the recent “60 Minutes” profile of Zundel, he claims, among other things, that the Holocaust never happened. When asked if he considers himself a Neo-Nazi, he replied “no” because Neo-Nazi imp!ics“ncw”Nazi. I inter pret this to mean that he is an “old” Nazi. What a pleasant thought. During the “60 Minutes” story, a college newspaper is faced with the decision of whether or not to print a piece of Zundel’s hate-filled propa ganda. In the end, thepaperdoesprint the ad along with an editorial convey ing the dangers of Zundel’s ideas. Their decision was based in part on the very noble principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The paper also felt that people were going to be subjected to Zundcl’s claims anyway, so why not print it under circumstances that they could control. The difference between the adver tisement in the DN and the one in the other paper was that the latter was much more overtly racist. To me, the one appearing in the DN was much more dangerous because its hate was cleverly hiddenbehind the word “free dom.” Any “freedom”-loving person, such as myself, who may have missed the “60 Minutes” story may tune in out of curiosity alone, only to be ex posed to Zundel’s treacherous lies. My question is: What were the people in charge of advertising at the DN thinking when they decided to print this ad without a simple dis claimer? Perhaps they just did not know what Zundcl stands for. I hope this is the case. After all, he is not a well-known man, and not everyone watched “60 Minutes.” Perhaps the DN knows whoZundcI is and decided it was not necessary to print a disclaimer because there was nothing in his ad suggesting he was a racist. The only other alternative is that the DN knows who he is, and they just don’t care that they arc helping to spread carefully hidden racism under the guise of freedom of speech. Frankly, this option scares me and because I am an optimist, 1 will give the benefit of the doubt and immedi ately dismiss it. While I strongly believe inZundcl’s right to speak, he becomes even more dangerous when he is allowed to speak to those who arc uninformed before hand ofh is views. Ifthc DN kncwwho Zundel was, I feel that a simple editor's note in the absence of a full editorial would have been sufficient in inform ing its readers. If the editors and the advertising personnel did not know who Zundcl was, it is certainly not my intention to question your journal ist ic integrity. My only hope is to call attention to this hateful propaganda and to ap prise those who intend to listen to Zundcl’s broadcast of his true inten tions. Joe Thompson junior geology VISION Andrew Loudon has said the atti tudes you have seen from the VISION party will continue during their reign in ofTicc. I am sad to say that he is correct. He will sit in office, lie, cheat, steal and basically be a good Republi can. He has not even been sworn in and has shown the university commu nity that he is one that cannot be trusted. He also asks us to unite with him, to make the campus a better place. 1 must state that while this is a nice idea, I cannot ally myself with a crook, liar or a cheat. Loudon has shown the people he is not an open or an honest person. He has shown the people that he will cheat if it means winning and then be so pompous and arrogant to say “There will be a fine levied and we’ll (VISION) pay it (DN. March 14, 1994).“ I am sorry that this atti tude persists from the VISION party, that one can willfully break the rules and only have to pay a fine. I hope everyone on campus realizes just what happened to this election, and votes next year. J.B. Howell RESUME party presidential candidate