Nebraskan
EcStorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
JeffZeleny...Editor, 472-1766
Jeff"Robb.Managing Editor
Matt Woody.Opinion Page Editor
DeDra Janssen... Associate News Editor
Rainbow Rowell.Arts & Entertainment Editor
James Mehsling.Cartoonist
Chris Hain.Senior Reporter
Hold your Are
Storage a small sacrifice for safety
This weekend, the NU Board of Regents will give students a chance
to voice their opinions aboutproposed changes to the Student Code of
Conduct.
The most controversial change in the code would require students
who live on campus to store their guns at the University Police Station.
Currently, student’s guns are locked in a specific area in each
residence hall orgreek house.
The Association of Students of the University of Nebraska and the
Residence Hall Association have opposed the change, claiming it
would be inconvenient for students.
It’s true that the administrators who suggested the policy were not
worrying about students ’ convenience. They had a more serious worry
—students’ safety.
Not that the new policy is tremendously inconvenient, either. It
should not be difficult, even for East Campus students, to stop by the
police station at 1335 N. 17th St. before they go hunting or target
shooting.
It’s just inconvenient enough to make students think before reach
ing for a deadly weapon.
The policy does not deprive students of their right to bear arms.
They are welcome to use their weapons. But placing a drive to the
police between an upset student and his or her gun will discourage
passionate, desperate acts.
Armed students couldbe dangerous to themselves and those around
them. Administrators are thinking of the greater good, the safety of all
students.
Responsible gun users should accept the inconvenience and realize
that the, new policy will protect them from danger, too.
Quick blame
Hatred heats up after Oklahoma flames
The young girl was dying, but her image screamed at us. The photo
of one-year-old Bay lee Almon being carried away said eveiy thing we
didn’t want to know about what happened in Oklahoma City.
Everyone is asking questions. Who did it, and why they did it. The
only answers they’re getting is what they gather from television and
from newspaper headlines. Unfortunately, those sources aren’t really
answering all the questions. But maybe we should all be glad that
they’re not
CBS, hours after the bombing, reported Muslim fundamentalists
were probably responsible for what happened in Oklahoma. Until the
John Doe sketches were released and Timothy McVeigh was in
custody, hatred toward Middle-Eastern Americans was close to
exploding.
Luckily, CBS’s was aboutthe only blunder in what could have been
one disaster after another of inaccurate reporting. News outlets across
the countiy are throwing out information around the clock, and doing
it quite responsibly. In situations such as this, it is easy for rumors to
become more concrete than facts, but what little facts are known about
the bombing are solid enough.
The credibility of the media is often in question. With only a few
exceptions, the coverage of the Oklahoma bombing has been reported
with the utmost care, honesty and responsibility.
We should all be glad that the few things we do know are not things
we shouldn’t know.
Editorial policy
Staff editorials represent the official
policy of die Spring 1995. Daily
Nebraskan. Policy is set by die Daily
Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editori
als do not necessarily reflect the views
of die university, its employees, the
students or the NU Board ofRegents.
Editorial columns represent the opin
ion of the author. The regents publish
the Daily Nebraskan. They establish
the UNL Publications Board to su
pervise die daily production of the
paper. According to policy set by the
regents, responsibility for the edito
rial content of the newspaper lies
solely in the hands of its students.
Letter policy
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 mate
rial 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 die Daily Nebraskan and cannot be re
turned. Anonymous submissions will not be pub
lished Letters should included die author’s name,
year in school, major and group affiliation, if any.
Requests to withhold names will not be granted
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska
Union, 1400 R St, Lincoln, Neb. 683884)448.
Send your brief letters to:
Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St,
Lincoln, Neb. 68588. Or fax
to: (402) 472-1761. Letters
must be signed and include a
phone number for
verification.
wrwvt '-f *- .» n tv,.':
Oneampus drinking
I am writing in response to Chad
Pekron’s letter (April 21). Pekroto *
called for the enforcement oftke
law that makes it illegal to con|
sume alcohol on campus. He
related the alleged suicide of a
UNL student to the alcohol
problem on campus.
First off, it is extremely sad that
a human life had to be lost, but
Pekron’s call for the enforcement
of the no-alcohol-on-campus law is
far from a solution to the problem.
It it ignorant to think that the
police or anyone subordinate to the
state can solve problems without
costing taxpayers dearly. I cite the
$250 billion squandered on the war
on drugs. Maybe it’s time to stop
criminalizing those who consume
alcohol underage.
Bret Gottschall/DN
If the selective service were to
resunect the draft, I could be sent
to die in a foxhole for my country,
but I still cannot enjoy a beer after
a long, hard day. The drinking age
should be lowered to at least 18.
And UNL should become a wet
campus, because it is a violation of
personal liberties when students are
not allowed to consume alcohol
where they live. Granted, there
does need to be some regulation on
?'r\i . f! . ,■ ,,a .. t, .
where and when alcohol is con
sumed.
But one must remember the
choice to drink or become intoxi
cated by such means is purely a
choice of that individual. The
government or anyone else need
not take responsibility.
After all, is a government that
racks up debt that responsible,
anyway?
Christopher A. Nollett
freshman
journalism
Bad editorial
Aside from Jamie Karl’s poor
journalistic hate-mongering, the
editorial “Dead right” (April 25)
concerning the subject of doctor
assisted suicide was by far one of
the worst pieces of journalism I
have ever seen. The The Daily
Nebraskan provided few facts and
then started moralizing on the
decay of modem society.
First, you made the point that
Dr. Kevorkian broke the laws of
the state of Michigan (which I do
not refute), but you distorted the
position he takes by sating he is
“thumbing his nose” at the law.
Based on that rationale, Abraham
Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.
were also thumbing their noses at
the law.
Why would someone blatantly
thumb his or her nose at the law?
Because the law is not always
right. Kevorkian is practicing an
American tradition called civil
disobedience.
Second, although this was an
editorial, you did not address the
issue objectively. The role of a
newspaper is not to propagandize,
but to present two sides of an issue,
evaluate evidence and in editorials,
present an opinion based on that
evidence. You didn’t present a
single position in support of doctor
assisted suicide.
There is actually very little
controversy when people realize
the actual position of Kevorkian
supporters. Most do not support the
. , . • o - bne
nght of anyone to commit suicide
in any circumstance; in fact, most
agree that suicide is NOT an option
in almost every single case of a
person wanting suicide.
They support suicide only in
those cases where a patient is
terminally ill, meaning that they
will die no matter what happens. If
I’m strapped to a hospital with a
week to live, racking up exorbitant
hospital bills to leave to my family;
have my affairs in order and
rationally discuss the matter with
my family and physician, then give
me liberty by giving me death!
Then there is the matter of your
evidence by relying solely on the
U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Must I remind you that newspapers
should always be questioning
things instead of taking them for
granted? Must I remind you that a
law is not always correct morally?
Must I remind you that simply
because a right is not explicitly
stated in the Constitution does not
mean that it is wrong?
Third, how did you ever make
the leap from doctor-assisted
suicide to the destruction of the
world? This incredible ideological
leap is so dramatic that I cannot
even fathom where you came up
with it.
Kevorkian has assisted m 21
suicides and now the world is
coming to end? Ah, but pardon me,
I am also making exaggerated
claims with no basis; you really
said “it will be the beginning of the
end of our country, or our world, as
a civilized one.”
This is absolutely ridiculous! AD
that you are really doing is jumping
on the bandwagon of ignorance and
fear, which is why I would venture
to say that Jamie Karl wrote this
piece of trash.
As a final note, 1 find it ironic
that this editorial (if it should even
be called that anymore) was printed
above a model example of an
editorial by the University Daily
Kansan. Perhaps you could learn
something.
philosophy