EDITOR
Paula Lavigne
OPINION
EDITOR
Joshua Gillin
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Brad Davis
Erin Gibson
Shannon Heffelfinger
Chad Lorenz
Jeff Randall
r ....
Guest
VIEW
Making it
happen
UCLA works toward
diversity curriculum
Daily Bruin
University of California - Los Angeles
Los Angeles (U-Wire) - Last year many
student organizations and the Academic
Affairs Commission organized extensively
around the campaign for a diversity require
ment at UCLA. Issues of curricular reform
are hot topics, with concepts of diversity
challenged by the elimination of affirmative
action, the formation of a new set of general
education requirements, discussions over the
future of ethnic studies and a new chancellor
thrown into the bargain.
UCLA has long toyed with and finally
rejected the supremely reasonable and long
overdue idea of including a class about race,
gender and class as one among the other
classes considered important for every stu
dent to take. Ironically, UCLA, which is one
of the most ethnically diverse universities and
which is located in a major urban center, is
currently the only UC school without such a
requirement.
Since last year, we have entered a differ
ent phase of the campaign, moving beyond
the groundwork of campus education. In
light of the inactivity of the Academic Senate
on this matter, students have taken it upon
themselves to write their own proposal for a
diversity requirement, which builds upon
past proposals written by faculty task forces.
Tlie student proposal is still in its rough
stages, but it would most likely be a one- to
two-quarter class covering:
1. The anthropological and socio-histon
cal foundations for such categories as race
and gender.
2. The modern-day manifestations and
ramifications of those categories in the form
of racism and sexism. The requirement
would be campus-wide and could either be
incorporated into the new general education
program or it could be separate, such as the
foreign language requirement.
The proposal has to undergo a process of
discussion and debate, as students and facul
ty together decide what exactly an academi
cally rigorous, socially relevant and institu
tionally feasible requirement should look
like.
The battle truly begins once the proposal
is submitted to the Academic Senate, where
factions of resistance and support have tradi
tionally existed. Large bureaucracies are built
to resist change, and we expect to hear the
old, tired and essentially evasive arguments
that always point to ubiquitous budget cuts
and financial problems, or the merits of “inte
grating” the curriculum with race and finan
cial problems, cm- the merits of “integrating”
the curriculum with race and gender studies
instead of having a specific requirement.
Significant progress has been made, but
much work also lies ahead.
EflMtfMfcy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Spring 1996 Daily Nebraskan. Tlwy
do not necessariy reflect the views of the
University of Nebraska-Uncoln, its
employees, its student body or the
Unwetwy of Nebraska Board of Regents.
A column is soieiy the opinion of its author.
The Board of Regents serves as publisher
of fire Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Tne
UNL Publications Board, established by
the regents, supervises the 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.
___
latter ftHcy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
tetters 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 Daly Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will
notbe published. Those who submit
letters must identity themselves by name,
year in school, major and/or group
affiliation, if anv.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
Haney’s
VIEW
DN
LETTERS
Last week’s battle, part I
I have to applaud Lori Robison on a
very well-written argument in favor of
abortion rights for women (Roe vs.
Wade, Thursday). Her logic is unparal
leled with any other writer that the Daily
Nebraskan has to offer. She even quoted
notable sources like the San Jose Public
Television documentary and various
quotes from the Journal Star. These
characteristics along with others make
her stand on abortion almost believable.
It’s just too bad that all of her talent and
research were wasted on an argument
that was flawed from the beginning.
The main premise on which her
whole argument was based on was her
so-called fact that “a woman has the
right to choose for herself what her
internal organs will and will not be used
for.” Actually, this statement is true, the
fallacy lies in the fact that a baby, fetus,
embryo, or whatever you want to call it,
is not a woman’s internal organ!! When
will people understand the fact that die
fetus is an entirety different entity from
that of the woman? Yes, the two are con
nected via the umbilical cord, but that is
exactly what it is - only a connection,
nothing more.
Nobody who has studied fetal
development can honestly believe that
life begins after birth. And for the same
reason, no one can honestly believe that
the fetus growing inside a woman is
some odd internal organ that continues
to grow! This “logic” is the very heart
and soul of the pro-abortion argument,
and without that premise, there would
be no rationality to the “choice” argu
ment. As long as that lie continues to
infest the minds of the populace, the
mass murdering will continue.
Nathan Sneddon
junior
biological sciences
Last week’s battle, part II
You’re right, Lori Robison, women
do deserve a choice of what to do with
their bodies. The problem is, what you
and all other pro-choice supporters for
get is that by the time a woman gets
pregnant, a choice has already been
made: the choice to be sexually active,
which occasionally (gasp!) results in
pregnancy.
I’m not advocating abstinence-only
education; although it is the only, 100
percent guaranteed method of effective
birth control, very few of us have the
patience and willpower to totally abstain
from sex until marriage. 1 have no prob
lem with a person deciding to have pre
marital sex. The problem I have (and
I’m sure I’m not alone), is when we
allow ourselves to fall into the myth of
“choice” to avoid the possible conse
quences of unplanned pregnancies.
What we need is to remember that
there are consequences to our actions,
and to be prepared to face those conse
quences. Rape and incest-born preg
nancies are a gray area for me personal
ly, because choice is not an option. But
abortion as birth control is murder, the
same as the death of any other innocent
person.
An unplanned pregnancy, while
being hard, is a survivable event Please,
if we must have tins “choice” available,
keep the 24-hour waiting period and
parental notification laws in effect for
the sake of preventing ourselves from
errors in judgment
Scott Johnson
senior
classica
This week’s battle, part I
I would like to correct some of the
misconceptions presented in a letter
from Clint Keller and Matt Molsen (DN
letters, Friday). Keller and Molsen
accuse the various facets of the GLBT
movement of being “totalitarian,” then
go on to characterize lesbians and gay
men as “mentally ill.” How ironic that
those who cry “totalitarian” would
share foe mental illness myth with the
likes of Adolph Hitler. The APA took
homosexuality off its list of diseases 25
years ago. Comparing it withTouretteis
Syndrome is like comparing Keller and
Molsen’s “pity the homosexuals” atti
tude with the benevolent civil rights ide
ology of Martin Luther King Jr.
Contrary to Keller and Molsen’s let
ter, we are not asking for the right to
“engage in certain activities” We are
fighting to keep our jobs based on our
ability to do them, and our children
based on our ability to raise them. In
other words, we are struggling for basic
civil rights, the same civil rights guaran
teed to ALL citizens under the laws of
this country. We are not fighting
through “empty slogans,” but rather
through grassroots organizing, legisla
tive lobbying, and the same “persuasive
debate” that Keller and Molsen claim is
not found in our movement We do not
“ignore criticism,” but rather we
respond to it, as I am doing with this let
ter. We cannot ignore criticism, because
silence is equated with consent, and I do
not consent to the assumptions put forth
by Keller and Molsen.
Finally, I would like to challenge
Keller and Molsen% attempt to defjnq
gay men and lesbians by what we do in
the bedroom. It’s time to put that idea to
rest My two-year relationship with Aiy
partner is not based on sex any more
than a comparable heterosexual rela
tionship would be. Rather, it is based on
love, trust and understanding.
Doesn’t sound like a mental illness
tome.
Alison Knudsen
senior
English and women’s studies
President, GLBT Resource Center
I I
This week’s battle, part II
In response to Clint Keller and Matt
Molson's “brilliant” letter to Friday’s
DN: v__
Your grasp of mental illnesses and
societal standards should make me
laugh, but instead, it sickens me. What
you call “normal” and “normalcy” has
no standard definition, and yet you
would criticize an entire group with ^
broad and unwarranted generalization
for not intelligently defending their
beliefs.
The fact is that homosexuality
needs no reasoning for acceptance. It is
a proposed idea that these people should
be given the same rights and privileges
that you and I enjoy. You, as the oppo
nent of this idea, have the responsibility
of providing some factual information
that proves that this acceptance is detri
mental to society. This you have done by
naming it a mental illness and compar
ing it to Tourettels Syndrome, which any
psychologist will tell you is an illogical
and impossible conclusion.
One more thing: You call marches
and demonstrations “totalitarian.” Are
you really a political science major?
Marches and demonstrations of free
opinion are prevented and suppressed in
a totalitarian state. And am I really to
believe that you are of the ridiculous
mind set that you can write whatever
you want to a free forum of opinion
such as die DN and condemn others for
holding a differing opinion than your
own?
