EDITOR
Paula Lavigne
OPINION
EDITOR
Jessica Kennedy
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Erin Gibson
Joshua Gillin
Jeff Randall
Julie Sobczyk
Ryan Soderlin
I
Our
VIEW
Operation
protocol
Standards necessary
if drug tests to work
In Norfolk last week, school district admin
istrators revealed that few students had agreed
to participate in their new parent-approved ran
dom drug testing program.
in tact, only 6 percent ot Nortolk s 1,2UU
10th- through 12th-grade students were signed
up for testing by their parents.
And Superintendent Randy Nelson told the
// _ Omaha World
•• Herald that he was
Under the somewhat disap
pointed by the low
Norfolk participation by
J parents.
program, any weii, what a
, surprise!
Student who Under the
. # Norfolk program,
tested positive any student who
r j tested positive once
Once for drug for drug use would
, , , be pulled from his
USe WOUld be orherextracurricu
7i 7 /» 7 . lar activities for a
pulled from his period. For a sec
j ond offense, a stu
Or tier dent would be
. . i banned from all
extracurricular extracurricular
activities for a ““w^wouida^
novinrt ” concerned parents
fjcr iuu. sign their child up
for such a pro
, - graiji? So the child,
if he or she uses
drugs, could have even more free time to be
temptea oy drugs alter testmg positive?
In District 66, another school district plan
ning parent-approved drug testing next month,
parents signed up about 16 percent of students
in middle and high schools. In that district, test
ing positive carries no school-based penalties.
No school officials will get the results of the
tests - only a child’s concerned parents.
If, in fact, the random drug testing is being
offered to help parents keep their children drug
free, not just create a “tough on drugs” facade
for schools, District 66 has chosen a much bet
ter option.
If parents are truly concerned that their chil
dren may be using drugs, these parents need the
resources to make sure their teens stay drug
free. A random drug test could help pressure
those parents’ children to stay away from drugs
because of the threat of parental notification.
But a parent who believes his or her child
may be using drugs knows that withdrawing the
child from all constructive activities is not the
answer to stopping drug use.
What does the child do after being banned
from all school-sanctioned activities? Engage in
out-of-school activities. Drug use, for instance.
The district would provide a greater public
service to parents and drug-using teens if it sim
ply notified parents after a positive drug test,
then armed them with the right drug-fighting
resources, such as phone numbers of organiza
tions or support groups that help teens end their
drug habits.
Until then, Norfolk’s program should be
dropped.
_
HMalMIcy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the FaN 1997 Daily Nebraskan. They do
not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nebraska-Uncoin, its
employees, its student body or the
University of Nebraska Board of Regents.
Aeolumn is solely the opinion of its author.
The Board of Regents serve as publisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Publications Board, established by
the regents, supervises thb production
of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its student employees.
Uttar Me*
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters 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.
Submitted material becomes property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will
not be published. Those who submit
letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major and/or group
affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters@unlinfo.unl.edu. *
Haney’s
VIEW
'X>mhv \* *4» Ipwt. He knows TUe "Prop its Fawn
ike o&Akf-ne fsxce moseAse vnu. te -put to
.me -Tti9*uo eHotifed
-n> pn 4.N* ore_soe± -VM.
/
55
1
i
*
Damage control
Public too harsh on paparazzi criticism
LANE HICKENBOTTOM
is a senior news-editorial
major and a Daily
Nebraskan photographer
and columnist.
The death of Princess Diana was
and remains a tragic occasion. The
people of the world have lost one of
their favorite dignitaries and are
confused as to why this tragedy had
to happen. As both a photographer
and a common man, I think the gen
eral public should reconsider its ill
favored view on the paparazzi being
investigated in her death.
^Even before it was discovered
that alcohol was a major player in
the accident that killed Diana, her
millionaire companion, Dodi Fayed,
and their driver, I found it hard to lay
all the blame on the seven paparazzi
who were allegedly chasing the car. I
think those photographers had a
right to be there ... up until the
moment the Diana’s drunk driver
broke the law again by allegedly dri
ving over four times faster than the
Paris tunnel’s speed limit.
As a young photographer I have
already had the opportunity to take
several pictures of celebrities. As
these opportunities presented them
selves, I thought a lot about the issue
of invasion of privacy. And in my
mind, the justification to invade is
overwhelming.
First, when you or anybody else
steps into a public place, the public
has a right to see you there.
Therefore it is the right of a journal
ist - a recorder of daily events - to
record the happening. Generally
I. ..'«■■■■ -
ii
Princess Diana wai
a privc
though, the public doesn’t care what
time the average Jo walks her dog,
therefore that information rarely
gets published.
But the public always cares what
huge celebrities are up to. The
paparazzi fill a void that the public
has. These freelancers shoot the pic
tures the photo agencies want them
to shoot. Publications ask the agen
cies for certain photos. These are the
pictures the public demands and
pays for. They are obsessed with
huge rock-star-like personalities and
others in the public spotlight, such
as the late Princess Diana. Don’t
believe me? Then why are you read
ing this right now?
If you are the type of person who
believes that people such as Diana
ought to have more privacy, then
maybe you ought to take a look at
yourself. Why are you reading this
column about her? Have you been
watching several hours of the night
ly news to get the inside scoop?
When you are at the checkout stand
do you ever take a look at the head
lines on the National Enquirer or
Star? Ever buy a copy? Even if you
can answer “no” to these questions,
then you ought to know that you are
in a minority. The reason why news
papers, the nightly news, magazines
ami tabloids are filled with the latest
details of Diana’s death is because
people buy, watch and/or read it. If
people want to follow the lives of
celebrities then somebody has to
photographically document them.
And who better to document
than Diana, the Princess of Wales?
Not only have people consumed
every moment her life - more than
most celebrities - but being in the
public spotlight was the number one
responsibility outlined in that job
> not supposed to have
description. As part of the British
royalty, she really never had any par
liamentary or executive power. The
position of Princess of Wales is real
ly nothing more than a figure head -
somebody to be seen and heard, and
nobody did it better than Princess
Diana.
Princess Diana was not supposed
to have a private life. She is the epit
ome of somebody whose life is to be
public because of who she is, not in
spite of it. The day that the British
monarchy decides that it wants to be
out of the public spotlight is the day
that the British monarchy no longer
has justification for its existence.
Diana knew this and was perhaps
the first member of the British
monarchy to use the press to her
advantage. Early in her marriage
with Prince Charles, Diana was able
to grab the press’s attention in order
to gain influence. Only through the
press’s help in gaining popular sup
port was Diana able to achieve all
that she did. Diana was known as
one of the few, if not the only, mem
ber of the British monarchy who
directly saw to humanitarian efforts.
Unlike others before her, she
touched the hands of AIDS patients,
starving children and land mine vic
tims. The paparazzi were with her
the entire way, boosting her public
image, creating a princess the world
grew to love. British Prime Minister
Tony Blair stated that “she was the
people’s princess, and that’s how she
will stay, how she will remain, in our
hearts and in our memories forever ”
Our memory of her has and will be
relied on the press’s coverage of her.
If you are upset because you
think the paparazzi and the press
destroyed her, consider what Diana
would have been without them.
m
----—l
: