EDITOR
Doug Kouma
OPINION
EDITOR
Anthony Nguyen
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Paula Lavigne
Joshua Gillin
Jessica Kennedy
Jeff Randall
Erin Gibson
Our
VIEW
Plug-in prof?
Internet can't replace
personal instruction
Sit down in front of a computer and ask
it to explain the finer points of molecular
chemistry in layman’s terms or explain why
you can’t grasp the political theory of an
cient Greece and it’ll probably just beep and
whir. .
It won’t pull up a chair and chat, orgrab
a piece of chalk and sketch out the details
on a chalkboard. For that kind of attention,
you need more than a virtual vacuum.
You need a professor.
The Internet and World Wide Web are
great resources for college students, but
without professors to make sense of the in
formation, the technology is just a tool or
toy.
In the race to be in the lead ot the tech
nology stampede, the university should not
trample on those professors who make the
infoimation worthwhile.
Technology can’t do what people like
John Gruhl can. Gruhl, a UNL political sci
ence professor, recently won the Outstand
ing Teaching and Instruction Creativity
Award for his personal attention and desire
to make students understand.
While it’s admirable thatNU is tunnel
ing funds into a virtual university and a new
information science and technology college,
it should not assume the Internet is going to
replace the accomplishment of professors
like Gruhl.
It’s exciting to spend money on new
technology because the innovation opens up
so many new opportunities. With every dol
lar spent, the university seems to be moving
further and further into the future.
But if this money is spent at the expense
of luring quality professors, it is money spent
in vain.
There is no way, as progressive as it
may seem, that all classes can be success
fully taught by plugging in to a computer
where they—and 6,000 other faceless stu
dents — watch a 10-inch professor being
beamed into their classroom.
With as many people as can be reached
with tiie Internet, you can’t expect to plop a
student down in front of a computer and
expect him or her to be enlightened.
Students leam best with personal one
on-one attention. As the professor-student
ratio decreases, the amount of material re
tained should increase.
To keep this personal attention and stu
dent retention, the university should continue
— even strengthen — its commitment to
hiring quality teachers.
To get quality teachers means flaunting
an attractive salary and incentives, which
can’t be done if there’s no money Set aside.
If a disproportionate amount of money
goes to fiber optics rather than faculty, or
software rather than salaries, then the Uni
versity of Nebraska is going to have more
information than it knows what to do with.
But it’s not going to get that informa
tion to its students in a way they can use it
and leam.
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials ate the opinions of the
Spring 1997 Daily Nebtaskm They do not
necessarily reflect the view;, of the Univer
sity of Nebraska- Lincoln, its employees, its
student body or the University of Nebraska
Board of Regents. A column is solely the
opinion of its author The Board of Regents
serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan;
policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Edito
rial Board The UNL Publications Board
established by the regents, supervises the
production of the paper According to policy
set by die regents, responsibility for die edi
torial content of the newspaper lies solely
in the hands of its student employees.
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief let
ters to the 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 the property of
die Daily Nebraskan and cannot be re
turned. Anonymous submissions will not
be published. Those who submit letters
must identify themselves by name, year
in school, major and/or group affilia
tion, if any. Submit material to: Daily
Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R
St Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters@unlinfo.uid.edu.
J
Mehs ling’s
VIEW
DN
LETTERS
Question Of Semantics
I apologize that in Jason
Fredregill’s eyes I am but a lowly,
“stupid freshman,” I only hope you
don’t hold this against me.
I recognize and respect Mr.
Harder’s attempt to religiously
support the termination of life;
however, I don’t understand his lack
of any logical consistency.
In the response to his first
question, Mr. Harder assumes
himself to be a deity when he states,
“God is displeased” and “knowl
edgeable of the holiness of life.”
Unless Mr. Harder is the God to
which he refers, he has the journal
istic obligation to properly attribute
God’s responses to these questions.
The response to his second self
answer question also contains
fallacies. Execution, by definition, is
not a “response to murder.”
Webster’s Dictionary will clarify
this for the misinformed. The
definition limits execution to the
inflicting of capital punishment. I
would like to remind Mr. Harder
that in the early part of this century,
rape was also considered a capital
crime and executions did occur as
punishment for this horrible crime.
His continued support of killing
utilizes Hebrew word origins and
reduces life to a matter of semantics.
I call capital punishment murder.
Mr. Harder calls capital punishment
execution. Adolf Hitler called the
extermination of Jews a purification.
If one has been murdered/
executed/purified, that individual
doesn’t care what it is called—that
person is dead.
By agreeing that those who
oppose the death penalty “place a
great value on the murderer’s life,”
Mr. Harder contradicts everything
he promotes. Each life has value —
granted by God or humans.
Mr. Harder incorrectly assumes if
the frequency of the death penalty is
increased, the value of life will grow
and the number of killings will
decrease. This is empirically not
true. In 1993, states that have
carried out executions have a
murder rate of 9.35 per 100,000
people. States without a death
penalty — 5.22 per 100,000 (source
Take A Chill Pill
In response to Jason Fredregill’s
letter regarding the seemingly high
amount of published letters from
first-year students: Jason, get a grip.
Just because a person is young or
in his/her first year of college does
not automatically spell out “moron.”
Not should these people (commonly
known as froshes) be made to bear
down under the glaring light of a
sign that says “WARNING: Unsub
stantiated opinions and banal beliefs
found here—DO NOT MENTION
ABORTION OR CAPITAL PUN
ISHMENT”
No, some of these youngsters
actually DO have important things
to say to the world, even though they
may not be as worldly and wise as
you.
Also, it seems that you miss the
point of what it means to have a
college newspaper. Part of the
purpose of a newspaper is so that its
readers can have a source of infor
mation that caters to their interests
(hence, the very informative series
of beer articles).
Another purpose, found in the
letters to the editor section, is to
provide its readers with the opportu
nity to address topics of interest and
concern (in other words, bitch) as I
am doing now.
Why should the interests and
concerns of first-year stu.dents be
made out to be any less important
than those of someone who has
“actually been out in the world?”
I suppose that Jason thinks he has
been out in the world. What would
80-year-olds say to that? They would
laugh in his face, that’s what they
would do. The reality is that we
ALL have been out in the world for
a while and we ALL have interests
and concerns to share, whether we
are 18, 22 or even 80 years old.
Geesh. Get down off you high horse,
will ya?
Sarah West
senior
English/secondary education/ESL
Ultimate Retribution
In his column Wednesday,
Michael Donley emphatically states
“that retribution is not part of the
laws of our land.”
His statement has no basis in
reality. Retribution is an integral
part of our judicial system, evi
denced by the millions of dollars
awarded as punitive damages in
civil trials.
These punitive damages are
retribution against the person who
commits a crime. Fines imposed on
people convicted in criminal cases
are also retribution. Donley should
refrain from making statements that
have no basis in fact and could be
misleading to readers uninformed
with the workings of our legal
system.
Donald P. Ku shiner
freshman
political science, history
MattHanky/DN
“Crime in the U.S.,” FBI).
I respect diversified opinions and
the right to proclaim and publish
these; however, I cannot give
assumptive and fallacious support
any credit.
Chris Begeman
freshman
undeclared
-.j^C Ia/^;+/% ebraskaiC 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 "R" St, Lincoln,.
• WriTjS? fax to (402) 472-1761,or e-inajL<letters@unlinfo.uni:edur.
..23oCjk rs must be signed and include a phone number for verification
*
