EDITOR
Doug Kouma
OPINION
EDITOR
AnneHjersman
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Doug Peters
Matt Waite
Paula Lavigne
Mitch Sherman,
Anthony Nguyen
t—
■ q.-M-:,. - ... i,;, . r.f»" ■■■[■ <5
Societal affairs
Endorsement deals
From The Sacramento Beet Sacramento,
Calif y
The shrinking availability of money for
nonprofit institutions has produced a trou
bling new fund-raising technique that the
American Cancer Society has just adopted.
Recently, the ACS announced that it had sold
endorsements to two :
commercial vendors, «
allowing each an ex
clusive right to use the Donations
group’s imprimatur to
sell products. have been
Under one deal,
the manufacturers of Stagnant,
the NicoDerm nicotine * .
patch are to pay the the SOCiety
cancer society at least ronnr+c •
$1 million in annual TepOTTS,
needs and,
years. In a second ar
rangement, the Florida demands
citrus marketers asso
ciation agreed to pay at have not ”
least $1 million for one
year. ——
Perhaps $4 million
is ah important consideration even for an or
ganization with a budget of roughly $1.7 bil
lion over those four years. Donations have
been stagnant, the society reports; needs and
demands have not The society “determined
that companies that are producing products
that support the missions or programs of the
American Cancer Society would be accept
able business partners for us,” a spokes
woman saitL
But should a public-interest nonprofit
promote Florida juice to the exclusion of all
others? And what if another company intro
duces a nicotine patch that is judged supe
rior to the NicoDam product? Isn’t the so
ciety then contractually obligated to continue
recommending a second-best alternative?
More broadly, what does hanging out
what looks like a “for sale” sign do to die
society’s credibility? Other groups in simi
lar circumstances have chosen instead to of
fer nonexclusive endorsements. For instance,
the American Dental Association seal of ap
proval is available to all fluoridated tooth
paste products that meet its standards, and
the American Heart Association endorses
low-fat, low-cholesterol foods. Wouldn't it
have been wiser for the cancer society to
adopt a similar standard?
Some citizens will surely see the ACS
decision to do otherwise as compromising
One must hope the net result will not be a
diminution of public support that cancels out
the revenue derived from the two question
able arrangements the cancer society has
made.
»
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials me Ibe opinions of the Fall
1996 Daily Nebraskan. They do not neces
sarily reflect die views of the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its student
body or the University of Nebraska Board of
Regents. A column is soley the opinion of its
author. The Board of Regents serves as pub
lisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Pubficarions Board, established by die
regents, supervises the production ofthe news
paper. According to policy set by the regents,
responsibility for the editorial content ofthe
newspaper lies solely in the hands of its stu
dent employees.
Letter Policy
llie Drily Nebnrioo welcomes brief let
ters to the editor and guest cohunns, but
does not guarantee their publication. The
Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit
or rgect any material submitted. Submit
ted material becomes the property of die
Drily Nebraricanaadcannotbe returned.
Anonymous submissions win not be
puMiriied. Those who submit lettea ant
identify themselves by name, year in
school, nugor and/or group affiliation,
if any. Submit material to: Daily Nebras
kan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St Lin
coln, Neb. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters Q unlinfo. uni .edu.
r- ,aj ;-»*= S-.r '?'... ‘ *' *
^\tm>^wmxk...
wwm^fcMim)
VKMSWSniNSltD --^.
—1-^
■:^:'^r 1
Theater review was no Masterpiece?
The theater critics for the Daily
Nebraskan evidently think that it is
illegitimate for works produced at the
Lied to have Christian subjects
(“Religious Themes Overbearing in
Masterpiece Drama,” Sept. 18). Do
they also think that it is illegitimate
for works produced at the Lied to
have environmentalist, drug culture,
atheistic, Marxist, Buddhist or New ~
Age subjects? Or do they object only
to Christianity?
In reviewing “The Masterpiece,
critics Emily Wray and Aaron
Saathoff said they thought the
dancing “lacked crispness.” Fair
enough. They faulted the sound
quality. Fine. But why was it neces
sary for them to be “Keeping an open
mind...” about the work’s subject
matter in order to say something
positive about the level of creativity?
(Compare: Although the ballet was
about vegetarianism, it was creative.)
Perhaps their real objection was
that they weren’t warned ahead of
time about the work's subject matter:
“Unfortunately,” they wrote, “the
promotional posters gave no real clue
about the actual stay.” One might
ask whether they also objected to
posters that didn’t say, quite clearly,
that “Angels in America” is about
homosexuality and AIDS, or that
, “Ran” is based on “King Lear.”
Perhaps they also object to “The
lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,”
which is often shown—without
warning—in children’s theaters, and
which, like “The Masterpiece,” is
grounded in Christian thrology.
Perhaps the posters bothered
Wray and Saathoff, but their real ax
is grinding away unmistakably in the
last sentence of their review: “[W]e
hope ’The Masterpiece’ was the last'
time we ever again pray in the lied
Center.”
This review reads like an ad
hominem argument and, whether
intentionally or not, raises the
disturbing prospect of religious
prejudice.
It would certainly be legitimate
for critics who believe that posters
must specify content (like food
Jason GildoWDN
labels, presumably) to argue in
support of their positions, though it
would be troubling if any critic
. thought that only certain subject
matters, including Christian ones,
required warning labels. All critics
should review the productions they
see, whatever their subject matters,
primarily on their merits (e.g. was
“The Masterpiece” a good Christian
ballet?). Or they should warn their
readers that they are really only
engaging in ideological (in this case,
anti-religious) polemics.
Janies E. Ford
professor
English
Open mind?
I write this letter in regard to the
article “Religious themes overbear
ing in ‘The Masterpiece’ drama”
from the Sept. 18 1996 issue of the
Daily Nebraskan.
A couple of comments to the
authors: As to your comment that the
“...ballet’s plot mirrored the classic
Bible’s epic.”—Dph. That was the
point.
Why should the promotional
posters tell you everything about the
production? Does every production
at the lied Center have a line at the
bottom saying, “This production
supports gay rights,” or “This
production is an atheistic portrayal of
life in a small town as seen through
the eyes of a disillusioned pre
pubescent daughter of an ex
Southern Baptist preacher turned
auto mechanic”? If the atheists, pro
life, pro-gay, or pro-anything-else
productions do not have to identify
themselves outright on there promo
tions, why do the Christians?
I don’t understand your comment
that “Ironically, the triumphant finale
also featured rock music.” What do
you mean? What is ironic about t
this? Perhaps you could explain to
me the Christian doctrine of music
stating that rock music is bad or evil.
While you are at it, could you please
find for me where Christianity says
it’s bad to dance, watch TV, read a
good book or have fun once in a
while? I thought not.
ine line aoout "...vocais against
various types of sin, including
money” is another stumper for me.
Although I didn’t see the production
firsthand, is it perhaps the case that
it’s the worship of money that they
were referring to?
And how about you “Keeping an
open mind...?” The article starts
with an insult (Yes, I see through the
shallow attempt at humor in this) and
ends with a condemnation. (And by
the way, who is “we”? Just the
authors, 1 hope.)
While we are on the topic of your
hope that “The Masterpiece” be “the
last time we ever pray again in the
lied Center”—why are you so
opposed to this? It’s OK to pray ft)
the gods of multiculturalism,
tolerance and art at the lied Center,
but not to the God of the universe?
Please, for the sake of your
readers, get some education before
you talk about something which you
have apparently little knowledge of.
Charles A. Cusack
graduate student
PS. Write