Pass the buck
Students need to appreciate financial support m
MATT PETERSON is a
senior English and news
editorial major and a
Daily Nebraskan colum
nist.
I’m not sure that any one of us
can truly appreciate the fiscal rug
until it’s pulled out from under us.
Sometime in mid-July, my father
turned to me in a rare, candid
moment, and said, “I don’t think
we’re going to be able to help you
out much next semester.” I bore the
news as more of an affirmation than
a declaration - in other words, I’d
seen it coming. Several questions
would necessarily arise in the
months to come. After all, when you
can’t turn to your family, after twen
ty-odd years of oblivious dependen
cy, to whom can you turn?
After briefly turning to my paltry
checking account and even paltrier
savings account, I came to the sober
ing conclusion that my lifestyle has
been far from self-sufficient over the
past two decades. I would next
determine that I still value my health
and my plasma too much to consider
seedier methods of fund-raising -
perhaps I’ll donate my body to sci
ence once I’m no longer in need of
it. Scholarship money seemed the
next most promising of fiscal
resources, but since I’d apparently
already collected more than my “fair
share,” and still lacked the ability to
run 40 yards in 4.2 seconds, I would
have to be content with what I’d
already been given.
Eventually looking beyond the
immediate family for help, I would
finally resort to calling on a very
distant uncle. Uncle Sam may not be
blood, but he and a wealthy investor
by the name of Ford/Stafford, saw fit
to stake their unsubsidized claim on
me.
“You’re a long shot, Kid,” Sam
said, slapping me on the back, “but I
believe in you. That’s why I’m pre
pared to offer you such a low, low
interest rate. And hey, when you
graduate in a couple years - but no
hurry, right - go ahead and take six
months off on me.”
Beaming with gratitude, I raised
the collar of my polo shirt, in true
Travoltian flair, and strutted out of
the financial aid office with peace in
my mind and a promissory note in
my pocket. No more scraping by on
soup and hot dogs for me - from
now on, I’ll live like a govemmen
tally subsidized - make that unsub
sidized - king. ‘Cause the feds gave
me a loan.
As the definition of the word
“loan” began to resound over the
carefree undertones of “Stayin’
Alive” in my head, my collar fell
back into its proper place, and my
previously Travoltian gait soon came
to resemble that of Scooby’s pal,
Shaggy. To an outside observer, this
particular episode must have resem
bled The Evolution of Man - only in
reverse; such is the onset of indebt
edness.
Many students, with the support
of their family as well as their prior
academic - and yes, sometimes ath
letic - record, have managed to
remain beyond the shadow of a debt;
but, considering the rising costs of
higher education, my own predica
ment could soon become all too
familiar to the next fiscal bracket
of college students.
Several students complain
that despite their parents’
apparent inability to finance
higher education, they are. no toff 1
cially in financial need. Tlius, it * •
would seem that the overextensions
of the parents, whether they are
manifested in the form of house pay
ments or car payments or their own
college loans, inevitably perpetuate
the indebtedness of their children.
The trail ofblame extends well
beyond the “sins of the father (and
mother),” however.
According to a recent article
published in The New York Times,
and subsequently in the Omaha
World-Herald, state-funded higher
education programs are likely to
face federal budget cuts in the very
near future. In a balancing act that
began with major revisions to such
institutions as welfare and health
care, public universities cannot be
far removed from the same sort of
financial scrutiny. Ultimately, such
scrutiny is fostered by a growing
concern about the national debt -
our government’s very own unsubsi
dized loan. And so, like any good
conspiracy theory, the trail of blame
leads right back to the bureaucracy,
itself. Higher education, particularly
at state universities, seems to have
become simply another means of
accomplishing the redistribution of
debt from a national to an individual
problem.
Where does the true responsibili
ty of financing higher education lie?
As one of the goals of his presiden
cy, Bill Clinton announced that he
hopes to make two years of college
as common as a high school diplo
ma. This potential policy would
suggest that government may
take a more active role in
such financing despite the
current trend in budget
cuts, and considering
the importance
of some
sort of
#
degree in
today’s job market,
maybe it should.
Or perhaps the responsibility
should remain primarily with the
parents - they brought us into the
world, so they should fully prepare
us for our entrance into it.
Ultimately, however, reality often
precludes this sort of reasoning.
Finally, maybe such fiscal
responsibility should lie in the
hands of those who are to be
educated. Considering how
many students take their
monthly contributions
for granted, perhaps
this is the most
productive of
the possibil
ities.
G.P.A.s
would
likely
»increase,
and inci
dents of
drunken debauchery
would decline, if not completely dis
appear, once students began invest
ing in themselves.
The most realistic option would
be if all three interested parties -
federal, familial, and familiar - col
laborated in the effort. But let’s face
it, when was the last time any two of
uie
three worked efficiently together? 5
Now that iVe
for my own indebtedness, how ever
effectively, and offered a solution to
the unsubsidized servitude of the
multitude, the next matter at hand is
the business of finding a loophole.
Education is, after all, an atypical
commodity - it can’t be liquidated.
If, after receiving my degree, I were
to refuse to resolve my indebted
ness, the government can’t very well
repossess my intelligence.
LANE HICKENBOTTOM
is a senior news editorial
major and a Daily
Nebraskan photographer
and columnist.
I have four friends that are room
mates and have until the end of the
month to move out.
Their lease has not run out; they
are getting evicted.
But my friends, Brooks, Chuck,
Mike and Nick, are not getting
kicked out for disorderly conduct.
They did not host one too many par
ties that resulted in 50 naked drunk
ards singing 100 bottles of beer on
the Wall in die yard. They did not get
kicked out for keeping a sloppy
place, you know, the kind where
only a giraffe can eat from the top
portion of the lawn. They did not get
kicked out because they were too
loud and so the neighbors com
plained on a nightly basis. They did
not get kicked out because they for
got to pay June’s rent, then July’s,
then August’s, then September’s.
- They did not get kicked out for any
of these reasons.
Actually, the only thing they did
wrong was sign the lease.
Deserted dwelling
If you’re confused, then let me
explain a little bit about the bril
liance of a certain Lincoln ordi
nance. City ordinance 27.03.220
states that a family can live with
only two unrelated people in the
same dwelling. So if nobody in the
dwelling is related, then a maximum
of three people can live there. Ever
heard of that ordinance? Not many
people have; however, it does pop up
in the news every now and again.
When my friends signed their
lease, they didn’t know that they
were helping their landlord break
the law. In fact, they were quite sur
prised whdn their landlord informed
them that he had received a letter
from the city telling him that he was
in violation of die ordinance. He
really had no choice but to be as
flexible as he could be with his ten
ants but still he had to evict them.
An ordinance like 27.03.220 is
absolutely ludicrous in a college
town like Lincoln. The indiscrimi
nately enforced law, created to help
Lincoln’sparking congestion prob
lem, has no room in a city with four
separate colleges.
Students oftentimes need to team
up with friends to pay for rent.
H—
It is unfair to disallow four or more unrelated people to live in
one place when the town’s economy largely feeds itself from the
- university. ” -, i
Usually the more bedrooms a house
or apartment has, the cheaper the rent
per bedroom is. With the grossly ris
ing rates of tuition and housing, for
some students, there’s no other alter
native in order to make ends meet.
UNL alone consists of about
20,000 undergraduates who generate
millions of dollars into the local
economy. It is unfair to disallow four
or more unrelated people to live in _
oneplpce when the town’s economy
largely feeds itself from the univer
sity. The student population deserves
better from the city it helps boom.
Even if students do know about
the ordinance when planning to live
together, the fact that it is erratically
enforced would cause several stu
dents to gamble in the hopes that
they would not get caught. Because
most living arrangements with four
or more unrelated roommates goes
unnoticed, it is reasonable to give it
a try when the situation arises.
But it is when the city does
enforce the ordinance that causes
trouble. Moving with little notice is
hard work and is often expensive. To
move means paying for a new securi
ty deposit, telephone hookup, electric
hookup, gas hookup, cable, water,
garbage, whichever are applicable.
Paying for those items is a pain when
it is a planned arrangement, but when
tenants are forced to do it at the spur
of the moment, the new expenses
may not be possible to pay. Id be.
curious how many students in die
past 10 years have had to drop out
because they were forced to move
back home because they couldn’t .
afford Lincoln after getting evicted.
Another thing I don’t understand
about die ordinance is why does it
only apply to a single rental unit?
For example: Why is Abel
Residential Hall considered to be a
building containing more than 500
dwellings? Why isn’t it one dwelling
with more than 500 bedrooms? A
four-bedroom apartment in Lincoln,
according to city ordinance
27.03.220, would only allow three
unrelated people to live there. If you
look at the amount of land that Abel
takes up, it is doubtfiil that ahywhere
else in Lincoln you could fit more
than 1,000 tenants, most of which
have cars that congest a concentrat
ed area. Wouldn’t it make more
sense to outlaw the problematic
parking in residence halls and allow
for the parking congestion to be dis
persed amongst several residential
ly-zoned blocks?
This problem is elementary. It
just doesn’t make sense to evict law
abiding, bill-paying tenants because
they are not related to each other,
especially in a town where it is neces
sary to room several people together.
