Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (May 2, 1994)
{^VPT ION Nebraskan \^/X II 1 lvyl 1 Monday, May 2,1994 Nebraskan Editorial Board University of Nebraska-Lincoln JeJfZeleny.... Editor, 472-1766 Kara G. Morrison.Opinion Page Editor Angie Brunkow.Managing Editor Jeffrey Robb.Associate News Editor Rainbow Rowell.Columnist/Associate News Editor Kilev Tim per ley.. ....Photography Director Mike Lewis. . . Copy Desk Chief Budget unity NU president s idea to be positive change NU President Dennis Smith took a big step toward unifying the University of Nebraska this weekend. Smith told the NU Board of Regents he would like to assert more control over the university’s entire budget and the office of the president. Smith is not overstepping his bounds with this proposal; he is right on track. He is doing exactly what the regents asked him to do when he was hired last fall. Next year is a budget year in the Nebraska Legislature, and this unification will send a good message to lawmakers. In past years, all four campuses of the NU system have acted somewhat independently during budget negotiations with the Legislature. This new, unified front should show lawmakers that the University of Nebraska has its act together. Smith’s budgetary assertiveness also will make clear the respon sibilities of the president’s office. In the past. Smith said, the office was like a “fifth campus.” “No university system can operate in that manner,” he said. A system like the University of Nebraska shouldn’t have to. The office of the president is in its first year of transition. Smith’s move will allow him to be completely involved in the budgetary process from the beginning. Smith’s proposal not only will present a unified front to the Nebraska Legislature next January but also will send a clear message to all four NU campus chancellors that their boss will be directly involved in fighting for their budgets. Keeping track Students should hold ASUN accountable Next fall, UNL students ought to take ASUN up on its call for accountability and hold the student senate accountable for its actions. The Association of Students of the University of Nebraska voted during dead week to give itself the power to appoint executive board members of the University Program Council. UPC members were given only two days warning about the proposal, and nearly 70 students attended the ASUN meeting to oppose the change. Senators and ASUN President Andrew Loudon cited account ability as the major reason for the takeover. “If this is about nothing else, this is about accountability. We can be held accountable for the $ 100,000 that we give (UPC), yet we have no control,” Charles Hamilton, a graduate senator, said. Some of the nearly 70 students who opposed the change thought the accountability argument was ironic from a body elected to represent them. But ASUN’s recent call for accountability should be turned into a major challenge for students to carefully watch its elected student government. The university will face issues next year on which a strong student voice is needed. Among these issues arc budgetary con cerns, student fees, ticket prices and — with the ASUN’s latest action — making sure UPC remains a diverse and dynamic student organization. Students now have ASUN’s own call for accountability as an incentive to hold their elected representatives more accountable in the future. Stall editorials represent the official policy of the Spring IW4 Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board liditorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the university, its employees, the students or the NU Beard of Regents Editorial columns represent the opinion oflhe author The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan They establish the UNI. Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content ol'the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its students. The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to I lie editor from all readers and interested others Letters will be selected for publication on the basis ol 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 us a guest opinion Letters and guest opinions sent to the newspaper become the property ol'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, il any. Requests to withhold names will not be granted Submit material to the Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb 6X5X8-0448 Premature stance After reading Thursday’s article relating to the College- of Architccture’sproposal requiring stu dents to purchase their own comput ers, we feel that some major clarifica tions need to be made. In 1993, the National Architectural Accreditation Board granted a five-year ^ac creditation to the college. In its report, the largest deficiency was that not all students were computer literate upon receiving their undergraduate degree. Where the report says “computer lit erate,” it docs not mean literate in programs such as word processing and spreadsheet use, which virtually all university students know and use. “Computer literate” here means a work ing knowledge of everyth ing from computer-aided design programs to sophisticated three-dimensional ren deri ng programs to land-mapping sys tems to furniture symbol libraries. We must have a computer educa tion program that reaches all students up and running before the next ac creditation visit in 1998. The initial position taken by Doug Stobbc, Government Liaison Com mittee chairman for the Association of Students of the University of Ne braska, at the all-college meeting Wednesday was premature and not fully informed. The College of Archi tecture Computing Committee has been reviewing several options, and the student purchase option is seen as the most viable at this time At Wednesday’s ASUN meeting, Andrew Loudon said this proposal was one of the fees ASUN needs to fight. This statement is incorrect. The tentative proposal is that if students are required to purchase their own computers, the cost will be staggered. When the student graduates, they would take their computer with them. The purchase of a computer is not a student fee; it is an investment. If the university purchases these computers for student use, a very large user fee would probably be added to tuition. The architecture college faculty has unanimously decided to postpone any collcgewidc computer program until fall 1995 to ensure the best decision will be made. The ASUN Executive Committee’s initial position on this matter was hurried and premature. We expect any future collaboration with them will be carefully researched. Brian M. Dusek ASUN senator College of Architecture Patty Traudt president College of Architecture Student Advisory Board O.K~. I PAID OFF ALL MY PARKING TICKETS AND LIBRARY FINES AND FOUND SUMMER HOUSING AND A JOB, BUT I KNOW I'M FORGETTING SOMETHIN!*. James MehsJing/DN Narrow vision Once again the Association of Stu dents of the University of Nebraska has flexed its muscles and managed to railroad someone’s personal priori ties through the system without in volving the constituents it so vocally claims to represent. The passage of Bylaw A Wednesday evening was an obvious blunder on the part of ASUN. I am not at all against the founda tion on which this bylaw claims to be grounded. The democratic process of checks and balances is one that is proven to work. Proposed in the right form, this change can be effective. However, it’s inappropriate to change a bylaw with only twodays notice and without proper research or consulta tion with the group in question. As a former ASUN senator for the journalism college, I am quite famil iar with the process of bylaw changes. 1 am also well aware that issues funda mentally based in the technical jargon of policy can often be overshadowed by emotional debate. Part of a senator’s job is filtering out the emotional rhetoric and getting to the heart of the issue. Without a doubt, at least one person in the Re gency Suite expressed a clearly un emotional point. Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs and longtime ASUN adviser James Gricscn stated incfTcct that the relationship between ASUN and the University Program Council as it now stands docs not violate any regents policy. Ironic that the one solid leg ASUN was standing on was swiftly swiped right out from under it, and it allowed this bylaw to pass. Accountability seemed to be the buzzword of the night according to ASUN. In my two years of attending senate meetings, I have never seen a turnout ofstudcnls like I saw Wednes day. Close to 70 students showed up to voice their disapproval of this bylaw change. It trulyamaz.es me that ASUN proposes to hold UPC accountable to the students of the University of Nc braska-Lincoln,whcn the senators are so blatantly disregarding their ac countability to their constituents. It appears that the “VISION” of this campus is wrapped up in 26 sena tors who disregarded the advice of both their adviser and their constitu ents. That sounds like a pretty narrow vision to me. Kimberly Arms senior broadcasting Letter in error Jim Rose’slcttcrof April 28 argues that the Teaching Committee of the English department acknowledges that “the English department has a problem with a ‘lack of rigor in the writing curriculum’ and that there has been ‘no response’ whatsoever to fixing (sic) this substantial problem." The letter is in error. The report in question comes from a committee of which I am the chairman. In the re port, the committee lists the resultsot its poll of the faculty as to major departmental teaching issues. Two faculty members indicated a concern for the sequencing and rigor of the writing curriculum. We did not respond to their concern because many other issues received far more con cern among the faculty polled. That two faculty members ex pressed the opinion that the writing curriculum could receive attention in these areas does not mean that the Teaching Committee of the Depart ment of English endorsed their opin ion, and my report does not say that there has been no departmental re sponse whatsoever to“this substantial problem.” The department is con stantly monitoring its performance in composition areas through composi tion research, teaching evaluations, the Writing Center and work with professors in other departments who arc interested in teaching writing. What my committee’s report does say is that the Teaching Committee has not determined whether to do a study of the issue of rigor and se quencing in the writing curriculum; we were the ones that made no re sponse, not the department. Noonc would argue that we cannot i inprove, and Rose may wish to presen t evidence to the Teaching Committee concerning where we are fall ingdown. However, he has not done this; he has written to the newspaper making alle gations unsupported by research evi dence. In the absence of specific evi dence from Rose, the department can hardly act on his assertions. Paul A. Olson Foundation Professor of English, chairman of Teaching Committee