EDITOR
Doug Kouma
OPINION
EDITOR
Anne Hjersman
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Doug Peters
Matt White
Paula Lavigne
Mitch Sherman
BethNarans
'• *. j gf*'.
Unforgettable
UNL must remember
its mission: education
Almost 200 students who were accepted
to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln this
year did not have ACT scores high enough to
meet the new academic performance standards
that will take effect next fall.
That’s not really a high number, consider
ing the freshman class has thousands of stu
dents, but it could be the start of something
worrisome.
Chancellor James Moeser came to the uni
versity with several goals in mind, but he
strongly emphasized one goal, which was “to
make a degree from this university mean
something.
Though the stricter admission standards
were in place before Moeser arrived, he com
mendedthem and didn’t rule out the possibil
ity that they could be raised again in a few
years.
He also pushed for creating a separate
honors college, recruiting more students from
outside the state and competing with Ivy
League schools.
This is admirable, and will mean a great
deal to the prestige of Nebraska’s alumni.
But with all the excitement for a top-notch
university, UNL should not lose touch with
its roots and the people it represents.
So far, UNL has maintained a tradition of
adhering to its land-grant mission: to use Ne
braska resources — students in this case —
and give a product back to the state. It has
also lived up to the expectations of a state
witffa concentrated uroan population bal
anced with a scattered rural one.
Basically, it was here to serve the students
— not itself.
Raising academic standards to make the
university join the upper crust of the nation
shouldn’t turn it into an elitist institution leav
ing some students with the crumbs.
It would be more admirable if a university
was brave enough to take on those students
who didn’t meet the standards and say, “OK,
before you graduate, we will work with you
and help you become as intelligent and pre
pared as your fellow students who started here
with 4.0 GPAs and ACT scores above 30.”
Let them in, but don’t let them flounder.
And it’s probably just accepted that a top
ranked high school scholar can go through
the new UNL honors program and come out
with an honorary degree.
But if you really want a degree to mean
something, offer the chance — and die help
—to those students who never thought they
could earn one.
Isn’t that convi: :r t?
Nebraska Unions Director announced
recently that a planned convenience store to
be included in the renovated Nebraska
Union will become part of University
Bookstore. Convenience? In the bookstore?
Is that really possible?
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the
Fall 1996 Daily Nebraskan. They do not nec
essarily reflect the views of the University
of Nebraska-! inroln, its employees, its stu
dent body or the University of Nebraska
Board of Regents. A cohuna is sotey Are
opinion of its anthoc The Board of Regents
semes aspnbfisherofthe Daily Nebraskan;
policy is set by Am Deity Nebraskan Edho
rial Board The Irt^Pnblicatiom Board, es
tablished by the regents, supervises the prt>
dncAon of Aw newspaper. According to
policy set by the regents, responsfoihty for
the editorial content of the newspaper Has
solely infoabamhofhs Undent iwnplcyeet.
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebnulcan welcomes brieflct
tea to die editor and guest columns, but
does not guarantee their publication. The
Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit
or reject any material submitted. Sub
mitted material becomes dw property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be re
turned Anoapmaassrihurisriuin tail not
be roNiehert Those who submit letters
In school major enVor group affilia
tion, if ary. Subnut material to: Dally
Nebraskan 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R
St. Lincoln liai KUl OlU.E-snail:
ok. vitro
lAOtt SPC£
for mm.
.4 \ . ~/f<t
^WWTsHjtA
um umM or
hUom SrtEETOF
Het id iut
im?iB sow>ih&
... fA£ANVML£ /nr A UtfL PARKINS Comiitt WfcEW...
i
Free minds* open expression
Behavioral expectations' trample civil rights
Editor's Note: This guest column
was written by Dwayne Ball,
associate professor of marketing;
* ' i Joseph R Stimpfl, assistant a • ^
professor of antbopology ; and -
David Moshman, professor of
educational psychology.
The past decade has seen
numerous attempts at U.S. universi
ties to promulgate harassment
guidelines, speech codes and other
behavioral regulations. Sometimes,
perhaps, real harm to students or
employees has been prevented. As
an additional result, however,
students and faculty who have
asserted controversial ideas or used
unpleasant maimers of expression
have been disciplined, expelled or
fired. Expensive legal battles have
erupted over civil liberties. Many of
these codes have been withdrawn in
whole or in part. It is against this
background that we wish to respond
to the recently released report of the
Chancellor’s Thsk Force on Conduct
Standards and Behavioral Expecta
tions.
me lass iorce was creaiea
~ partially in response to concerns
over the way in which off-campus
violence by a football player against
his former girlfriend was handled by
university authorities last frill. We
share everyone's dismay over any act
of violence such as this. We share
the desire of many people to see a
municipal, state or federal court
system deal firmly, swiftly and
effectively with criminal violence.
Yet, at many points, the report
refers not to violence, other illegal
acts, or even to academic dishonesty,
but to “negative behaviors,” “inap
propriate behaviors,” “abusive
behaviors,” “verbal abuse,” “disre
spect,” the “disintegration of
behavioral standards” and “prob
lems concerning the attitude...” of
some students. The task force has
recommendations. For example, as a
student oremployee:
■ you would be offered the
opportunity (it's not dear if you
would be required) to attend
- education BfssinnB to infirm you as
to what “inappropriate behaviors”
"are; and " V
■ you might be rcquircdto sign
a statement that you agree to follow
a “creed of behavioral expectations,”
although there is no specific
statementof exactly what would be
included in this creed.
In addition, the task force asserts
university authority to require you to
report yourself to die university if
you’ve been convicted of crimes
against persons or property off
campus. You’d have to report your
arrests, too, even if you are innocent.
If you are an “agent of the univer
sity” you would also have to report
on your friends applying for admis
sion or a job.
We are not concerned by some of
the 16 categories of recommenda
tions in the report. But we are very
troubled by how far the task force
may have gone beyond addressing
the problems of illegal acts and
academic dishonesty on campus.
Some of these recommendations run
contrary to what a free citizen
should expect from his cm* her
government or from a tax-supported
state university.
To begin, the coerced signing of
a creed of behavioral expectations
smacks of the anti-communist
loyalty oaths of the 1950s. Further,
with so many undefined words for
“negative behaviors,” it is impos- "
sible to tell from the report how far
the university is supposed to go in
regulating us. Today, some people
would define mere rudeness, name
calling and loud disagreements as
“abusive” or “inappropriate.” Would
discourteous speech become an
offense? Which words, gestures or
other acts would be puniiriied? The
report does not say, nor does it offer
guidance to future decision-makers.
But even more worrisome than these
specific recommendations is the
pervasive assumption in the docu
ment that the university has any
authority at all to regulate “negative
behaviors” without specifying
precisely what those are at the tone
the authority is claimed.
Let us put forward some alterna
tive propositions. Here are a few
basic rights we believe you should
have as a member of any university
community:
£ ■ You should not be required to
sign any oaths as a condition of
employment or student status.
■ You should never have to fear
that the university will monitor your
behavior off campus at all, nor on
campus for anything other than
illegal acts or academic dishonesty.
■ You should expect that the
university will respect your right to
hold your own opinions, no matter
how offensive or unpopular, and not
coerce you to attend events to
“improve” than.
■ You should be able to express
an opinion on any matter using any
words, pictures or gestures you wish
(away from someone else’s private
living or working area), no matter
how offensive or upsetting it may be
to anyone (and allow others the
same right). -
■ hi a classroom, you should be
able to express whatever opinion you
like on the topic under discussion
(and allow others the same right),
without fear that anyone who finds it
offensive can have you charged with
some sort of violation, reduce your
grade or otherwise affect your status
as a teacner or student.
■ You should be in all ways free
from university regulation of your
behavior, within civil law, except in
specific and well-defined cases in
whidi toe university simply could
not conduct teaching or research
without such regulation, and can
prove it.
We believe, not in a bland
"balance between the... rights of the
individual and toe needs of the
university community,” as the task
force does, but in the aggressive
assurance of individual rights first
and foremost. There are too many
examples in history of well-meaning
attempts to create a well-ordered
society by compromising civil
liberties. Once such a "balance”
principle has been established,
further destruction of individual
rights is almost inevitable.
Responsibility, decency, compaa
sion, respect and courtesy are signs
of the good society that all thought
ful people seek. But if such behavior
is purchased at toe cost of official
longer have acoomunity of free
ha?!o6t its mea^g.e,Sity
