Opinion
Wednesday, November 16,1994 Page 4
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
JeffZeleny.Editor, 472-1766
Kara Morrison.Opinion Page Editor
Angie Brunkow....Managing Editor
Jeffrey Robb.. Associate News Editor
Rainbow Rowell.Columnist/Associate News Editor
Mike Lewis.Copy Desk Chief
James Mehsling.Cartoonist
Smoke screen
Tobacco industry wins free and clear
The tobacco industry is wheezing a big post-election sigh of
relief.
The industry won big Nov. 8. Since then one Republican has
announced an end to the scrutinization of the safety of tobacco
products.
Rep. Thomas Bliley, R-Va., who most likely will head the
House Health and Environment subcommittee, said he saw no
reason for the committee’s high-profile tobacco hearings to
continue.
“I don’t think we need any more legislation regulating
tobacco,” Bliley said in a television interview last week.
The reality comes as a great disappointment to Rep. Henry
Waxman, D-Calif., the committee’s outgoing chairman.
Waxman has said the only clear loser in the turnover will be
America’s general health. The winner is another multimillion
dollar special interest and strong lobby in Washington.
Waxman is correct in saying Bliley doesn't have America’s
best interest in mind in announcing an end to any further scru
tiny of the tobacco industry.
Could this have something to do with the fact that Bliley
comes from the Virginia district in which Philip Morris is the
largest private employer?
Or maybe the fact that Bliley, according to Newsday, re
ceived more than $90,000 in campaign contributions from the
tobacco industry?
So far in the hearings, Waxman has worked to show the
industry concealed its knowledge that smoking is a health risk..
Chief executives of the top tobacco companies have continued
to deny that nicotine is addictive. The U S. surgeon general
believes it is.
Questions still linger as to whether companies have known
otherwise. Some have even gone so far as to question whether
tobacco companies have altered the level of nicotine in their
products in order to get customers hooked.
In short, it seems the sellout by Bliley is not exactly the kind
of “mandate for change” voters reportedly voiced last week. It is
a return to special interests controlling Washington, disregarding
the public welfare.
The only thing that is clear is that more answers arc needed
about the health implications associated with using tobacco
products.
And this new smoke screen only shows the industry has yet to
prove it has nothing to hide.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans arc diagnosed with lung
cancer each year, and the number of women dying from lung
cancer has surpassed the number of women who die of breast
cancer.
It is a growing problem
People have a right to be warned about the safety of tobacco
products so they can make an informed decision about using
them.
SufT editorials represent the official policy of the Fall 1994 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 UNL
Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of tho newspaper lies solely in the hands of
its students.
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 theright 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. 68388-0448.
Tvp \>OUAK
fllU SfsYs 'IVl &0\) W
x^"m sm
W&, \% k tetWf
... Uovo
#>Me vd£ CMtT
\H SOW p I
r-- >» |
GlOE^noM.
N[wsm'
Massey
The current debate concerning
the removal of assistant professor
Raymond Massey from a search
committee raises difficult questions
of equal opportunity, religious
liberty and freedom of expression.
In accord with a recent Daily
Nebraskan editorial, we suggest the
following guiding principles for
cases of this sort:
First, UNL is correct to forbid
discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation. All individuals
have a right to be considered and
evaluated in academic and employ
ment contexts without regard to the
nature of their sexual desires and
inclinations. ^
Second, UNL faculty, staff and
students have a right to disagree
with UNL about the inclusion of
sexual orientation in its equal
opportunity policies. They also have
a right to express that disagreement
and to lobby for changes in UNL
policy with respect to sexual
orientation.
Third, as long as UNL’s sexual
orientation policy remains in effect,
all faculty and staff, when acting in
their official capacities as employ
ees of UNL, have an obligation to
refrain from discriminating on the
basis of sexual orientation. UNL
has the authority and obligation to
ensure that its employees, when
acting in their official capacities, do
not engage in such discrimination.
Finally, some employees may
consider themselves obligated to
discriminate against lesbians, gays
and women, blacks, Jews, Mor
mons, atheists or others whom they
consider intrinsically unfit for
certain jobs or programs. Employ
ees do not have a general right to
disregard those UNL policies that
they deem themselves unable to
follow.
Whenever possible, however,
UNL should attempt to accommo
date the beliefs of its employees by
not assigning them responsibilities
that are likely to pit their religious
or philosophical convictions against
their obligation as UNL employees
to act in accord with principles of
equal opportunity.
David Moshman, president
Nebraska Civil Liberties Union
Marlayn Cragun, executive
director
Nebraska Civil Liberties Union
Election
This is in response to the post
election editorial (DN, Nov. 9,
1994). To begin, there arc several
dubious statements in the editorial
and if left unanswered might be
mistaken for the truth. The readers
of this paper arc entitled to objec
tive facts and a different perspec
tive.
First, in the noble quest for
objectivity, the article states that the
“traditionally conservative”
Nebraska electorate “turned toward
the Democrats.”
To the contrary, I would argue
that voters turned toward more
conservative political ideas. Yes,
Bob Kerrey and Ben Nelson, both
Democrats, won their respective re
election campaigns. But the
editorial fails to take into account
Jon Christensen's defeat of Peter
Hoagland, the re-election of
Republican Doug Bcrcutcr, or that
Republicans won the offices of
secretary of state, attorney general
and treasurer. The facts clearly
contradict the opinion of the
editorial board.
The editors also feel Republican
control “spells not only gridlock,
but deadlock in Washington.” They
also allude to the return of “good
ol’ boy” politics. Perhaps a history
lesson is in order.
For the last 40 years Democrats
have controlled the House of
Representatives and have become
the authority on obstruction and
corruption. The records of Dan
Rostenkowski and former Speaker
of the House Jim Wright should say
plenty about Democratic ethics.
I admit the Republicans are not
blameless and now we must hold
them accountable. But the potential
now for spending abuses is less
Krobable for one reason. Republican
ypocrisy on spending restraints
would put them back in the minor
ity for another 40 years after the
next election cycle.
The editorial also incorrectly
misrepresents the Contract With
America.
The contract promises nothing
but an up-or-down vote in the
House on ten issues important to
Americans, including a balanced
budget amendment. These are
hardly revolutionary ideas and the „
time for such legislation is long
overdue.
We should not expect miracles
in the next two years. On this count
the editorial is correct. The trans
formation of American civilization
will not take place overnight.
What 1 disagree with is the
prediction of “political stagnation.”
Last Tuesday’s elections made a
loud statement to our elected
officials. Reform government or
leave, i nis means smiting mure i
responsibility to state and local
governments and an end to dino
saur federal programs.
In their sour-grapes lament, one
particular phrase is an example of
the political philosophy behind the
article. The editors speak of “social
programming” such as federal
education and environmental and
health care mandates. It seems the
editors are longing for a “more
egalitarian nation.
Perhaps the Soviet Union circa
1970, with its top-down program
ming was more egalitarian.
Everyone was equally poor, save a
handful of party officials. Equality
is a noble goal, if approached in the
proper context of equality of
opportunity, not government
regulations to reach equal results.
The board also complains that
Republicans will halt progress
toward a more just and fair society.
Again, they are wrong.
The first matter of business the
Republican House will bring to the
floor requires elected officials in
Washington to adhere to the same
laws that every other citizen must
obey, a piece of legislation the
aristocracy the Democratic leader
ship refused to pass.
This year’s election did end
historically on Nov. 8. In one of the
last contests to be called. Speaker of
the House Tom Foley, became a
victim of the angry voters of
Washington state. This closed the
the history book on two generations
of Democratic rule. It also signaled
the beginning of a Congress that
reflects more accurately the mood
and sentiment of the country.
Joseph B. Franz
junior
finance
