{^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
