EDITOR
Paula Lavigne
OPINION
JEDITOR
Jessica Kennedy
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Erin Gibson
Joshua Gillin
Jeff Randall
Julie Sobczyk
Ryan Soderlin
Our
VIEW
Archway
. 1
arguments
Plans for structure
cemented in absurdity
The Gateway to the West it’s not.
Ever since former Gov. Frank Morrison
announced his intentions to build a $40 mil
lion archway over Interstate 80 near Kearney,
government agencies, architectural firms and
Nebraska citizens alike have done little but
scoff at the idea. And with what seems to be
good reason.
The Great Platte River Road Archway, as
it is officially called, will be a 320-foot long
span of steel, limestone and wood over one of
the nation’s longest stretches of pavement.
Proponents of the archway - most of whom
are Morrison’s friends - all think the 14-story
structure would beautify a rather desolate and
jusi piam oonng segment oi me state.
To Morrison’s credit, some positive senti
ments have filtered in from commuters and
motorists who regularly travel the flat
expanse of cori|reteJcnown as Interstate 80.
Gaudy or not, thirachway would leave some
thing for driversti look forward to.
And to quell any hot-under-the-collar tax
payers, Morrison has been willing to raise the
money for the project with the help of a foun
dation headed by himself. Morrison plans to
raise $35 million for the project, completing
it by July 4,1999.
Just in time for one of the biggest money
making holidays of the year, of course.
But is a poor man’s version of the St.
Louis Gateway Arch, anchored by sculptures
of an American Indian and a cowboy-like
trailblazer, really what central Nebraska
needs to spice things up? There are other ele
ments to consider when deciding on a beauti
fication project of this size, however.
ine monument win oe in me center or
what is affectionately known as “Tornado
Alley,” a section of the state notorious for its
hazardous weather conditions year-round.
Imagine a 100-foot segment of steel and
stone crashing down on the interstate. So
much for beautification then.
Also, when it snows in the pancake-flat
Platte Valley, drifts tend to appear against
anything taller than 3 feet high. What would
drifts be like against a structure standing
more than 140 feet high?
Then there^ the time and money that will be
sunk into the project. Although no state money
will be used for the construction or maintenance
of die structure, structures for higher learning
are crumbling left and right on this very cam
pus. IfMorrison really wants to help the state, he
should put up the money to keep Richards Hall
from sinking into the ground.
And after all the fighting over air rights
and groundbreaking, after the arch is cement
ed into place two years from now, how long
will it stand? Surety not as long as any sort of
solid, inner-city community improvement
project would.
Even though this state is small, it has its
share of problems. And no amount of con
crete and steel will fix them.
uiiunai roiicy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Fan 1997 Daily Nebraskan. They do
not necessarily reflect the views of the
University 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 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 the production r
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.
; ..- J
Latter PtHcy
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
. We fett A1 im omM
No* Beuete VMHe/wmj
,TT toJLWWT
pot U#« Y«*v
(jM CrtW&WeM WE> tOCrtW
PC4CM6-.
\s \iHue**
m<n£ Bey<»® pmolV
^CtWlaMSHlPS 4®
IN Mi 5*APVIW
£j6lM6 sn^'^rtT
J ) J
Mum’s the problem
Protecting Chelsea’s privacy infringes upon others
"SHE"" : : * I LL
ww
... (Oxfeld) should have been able to
comment on Chelsea s arrival for the simple
fact that she is — like it
or not — a public figure”
KAY PRAUNER is a senior
news-editorial major, the
assistant copy desk chief
and a Daily Nebraskan
columnist.
This week a student columnist
was fired for using a profanity in one
of his expositions.
His editor’s decision to fire him
was lauded by the university, and
may have even set precedence for
media actions across the nation.
But when Jesse Oxfeld of the
Stanford Daily mentioned the “C
wuru, mai is, i^neisea bullion ana
her debut on Stanford University’s
campus, he meant no harm. He
merely alluded to the fact that her
privacy was equally as important as
the privacy of other university stu
dents when he mentioned two gripes
about die Daily’s rather opaque “no
Chelsea” policy: That the rule meant
journalists “don’t ask, don’t tell,
don’t pursue” (or, in other words,
don’t do their jobs), and that both the
university and the White House
made such an outlandish display of
Chelsea’s arrival - complete with
ma, pa and hundreds of security offi
cials donning dark glasses and leer
ing suspiciously at every student in
sight - that the efforts to ensure her
privacy had kept other students from
their own privacy. Oxfeld’s column
included nothing offensive, nothing
radical, nothing harmful, nothing
libelous, nothing unfair.
Even so, Editor in Chief Carolyn
I...“...
Sleeth said Oxfeld was in strict vio
lation of her adamantly enforced
“no-Chelsea” rule, and thus violated
his duties as a weekly columnist.
Beneath this rule, Chelsea’s
name could be mentioned only if she
were involved in what was deemed a
“newsworthy event.” And, according
to Sleeth, Chelsea’s arrival did not
fall under the “newsworthiness” Cat
egory. So when Oxfeld refused to
submit a rewrite, he was fired.
So how far, exactly, must this
policy span? In an interview with
ABC News, Oxfeld said, “The blan
kci policy mat we win not cover
(Chelsea) springs from a good
motive, but this has been taken to a
... degree where you can’t mention
her name.”
Certainly, Oxfeld blatantly disre
garded his editor’s instructions; but
he should have been able to com
ment on Chelsea’s arrival for the
simple fact that she is - like it.or not
- a public figure.
The entourage that surrounded
Chelsea on moving-in day clearly
pointed to her celebrity status, and
this was exactly Oxfeld’s point. No
other Stanford student arrived with
such flamboyance; no other student
pulled up with a platoon of body
guards.
Of course Bill and Hillary want
their daughter to have as “normal” a
college experience as any other
young adult. And I’m sure the only
child of die most powerful man in
the world wants nothing more than to
have some shred of normalcy in her
life. Having grown up the governor’s
daughter, Chelsea has never been out
of the spotlight; yet this familiarity
would never protect her from the
glare. For even Chelsea’s delibera
tion about which university to attend
made the evening news for months.
But what average Stanford stu
dent could ignore the fact that a
Secret Service agent sits in on
Chelsea’s Composition 101, or that
men in dark glasses perpetually sit
within earshot as she’s having dinner
with friends in the cafeteria?
Albeit through no tault ot her
own, when Chelsea arrived, she did
disrupt the standard student’s activi
ties on Stanford’s campus.
And similarly, through no fault of
her own, Chelseais a public figure, a
status that under any circumstance
should permit the media to cover her
actions - so long as coverage of pub
lic figures remains one of die fore
most tenets of the First Amendment.
As of right now, the media’s priv
ilege to covet public f gures remains;
and beneath this privilege, Jesse
Oxfeld should have been allowed to
rem ' is well.
as for the Stanford Daily,
protect Chelsea’s privacy, please, but
don’t allow her presence to pervade
the rights of other students or staff -
for such actions will detract from
their own “normal” university expe
riences.
. ......—--1
'.;j
fc: ’ - J
1 I
... —---—««« *W* ' '“'"■uu. j
