Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 5, 1998)
is the same
is appropriate move
The NU Board of Regents unanimously
voted Jan. 17 to christen the Memorial
Stadium football field Tom Osborne Field.
They said they did it to honor Osborne -
who guided NU to three national champi
onships and 255 victories in 25 years - for the
tremendous contributions he has made on
and off the field to the Nebraska football pro
gram. The regents even waived a board poli
cy developed in 1993, which required a five
year wait before a facility could be named
after a person who retires, leaves or dies.
But by honoring Osborne, are they dis
honoring the veterans for which Memorial
Stadium was named?
The Nebraska Veterans Council argues
fViof ic TTUa I
council has unanimously condemned the
regents, publicly opposing the new name.
John DeCamp, a spokesman for the coun
cil and a Vietnam War veteran, said naming
the field after Osborne has the “net effect of
desecrating and denigrating Memorial
Stadium and erasing the memory of the
deceased veterans to whom the stadium and
field were dedicated.”
First of all, we are talking about two dif
ferent things here. Naming the Comhuskers’
football field Tom Osborne Field does not
hurt the veterans’ cause or erase the honor
ableaccomplishments for which Memorial
Stadiuni was named. Memorial Stadium will
Bht the field that it encompasses was
never given a name. Why shouldn’t the
regents take the opportunity to honor Osborne
by stamping his name on the field that
belongs to the program he helped to build?
Second, clearly distinguishing the field
from the stadium does not set a precedent.
Several NCAA Division I schools have sepa
rate names for the two.
The council has encouraged Osborne -
who originally said he felt uncomfortable with
the regents’ vote - to speak with the regents on
its behalf. Osborne refused. He doesn’t want to
appear ungrateful. And in a show of support
for the veterans’ cause, Osborne has repeated
ly said he wants the stadium to be known as
Memorial Stadium just as much as he wants it
known for his accomplishments.
But some veterans appear worried the
spotlight will shift from their accomplish
ments to those of Osborne. But isn’t the spot
light big enough for both Osborne and the
veterans? Why must honoring one great man
insult other great men (and women)?
DeCamp has said that if the regents don’t
reverse their decision to name the field - and
it appears likely that they won’t - other
actions will be taken. Maybe DeCamp and
other dissenting veterans would be wiser to
follow Osborne’s lead and recognize his
accomplishments as well as their own.
It’s the honorable thing to do.
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Spring 1998 Daily Nebraskan. They
do not necessarily reflect foe views of the
University of Nebraska-Lincoin, 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 semes as pubfisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Trie
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 ties solely in
the hands of its student employees.
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters to the editor and guest columns,
but does not guarantee their publication.
The DaHy 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 win
not be published. Those who submit
letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major andfor group
affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daly Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. E-mail:
Ml and no one cares
In her column, “God is good”
(Wednesday), Katya Ovcharenko
quotes Nietzsche as saying, “God is
dead, we have killed him, you and I!”
It is interesting that Ms. Ovcharenko
begins her defense of Christianity
with this quote since, if God is dead,
it is the Christian faith that holds the
blop^dagger in its gnarled fist.
~~ The “death of God” did not truly
come about until the advent of
Christianity. Up until then, almost
everyone believed in one form of
deity or another. It was only when
Christianity adopted the absurd idea
of taking the Bible literally and
adopting such incredible ideas as
original sin that the rot set in.
All of Christian dogma depends
on the idea of original sin. Original
sin rests on the notion that because
some poor schmuck, who we can’t be
sure existed, took the “all-you-can
eat” sign at the Lord’s Buffet too far
and got kicked out. So, because
f A A A At>«*i a/4 ntirnir iTr< f L
his fruit platter, all the rest of us are
bom into this world with an automat
ic, one-way ticket to hell, which we
aren’t really sure exists.
And stop trying to blame
Christianity on Jesus. Jesus was not a
Christian, Jesus was a Jew. When
Jesus was asked by the rich man how
to be saved his reply was to follow the
commandments, and in his parable of
Lazarus and the rich man (different
rich guy) he stated clearly that if the
teachings of Moses and the prophets
were not enough to save a person,
even a man rising from the dead
wouldn’t do any good.
Christianity has had nothing to do
with Jesus since the fourth century.
God is good, but Christianity is a
Mark E. Buhrdorf
\y. - 'j
Fight the good fight
I am Linda Crump and I recently
became an assistant to the chancellor
and director for affirmative action
and diversity programs. I’m writing
to the university to ask all of us to
become responsible for the things we
choose to say and do.
I was discouraged that a faculty
member would choose to send a mes
sage that appears to be contrary to the
goals of creating a welcoming com
munity at our university.
I hold dear the free speech rights
and obligations of the First
Amendment. I honor its power in pre
serving and protecting our nation.
I write to you because we have all
chosen to be part of this community
of diverse interests, and as members
of this community we all have
responsibilities and obligations as
well as rights.
I’m asking each of us in this com
munity to “taste your words before
you spit them out.” This requires
thinking about the (effect—intended
and/or unintended) that our words
and deeds will have on others around
us. It involves balancing our individ
ual right to say or do something in
light of our choice to be a part of a
community. It involves knowing what
it means to be a responsible member
of this community and acting in ways
that create a community where we all
can be nurtured to reach our fu.ll
This community should be alive
with healthy debate on a variety of
issues. The debate should stimulate
intelligent conversation. Creating
this type of debate without creating a
hostile environment takes creativity,
intelligence and a personal sense of
responsibility. I believe that we have
the potential to make this a reality in
our community. It is the responsibili
ty of all the members of our commu
nity to act in a responsible manner.
We all need to taste our words.
assistant to the chancellor and
director for affirmative action and
I am responding to the column
(Monday) by Jim Vance (“Admission
of guilt”). His failure to be clear
about what he is talking about exem
plifies for me the source of quite a bit
of our difficulty in race relations in
this country today. The body of the
column uses the terms “preference,”
“plus,” “affirmative action,”
“favoritism” (and) “lower standards.”
Unless we describe explicitly what
we mean by words such as these, we
contribute further to the confusion
rather than helping our society move
on toward greater racial equality.
The danger in my judgment is that
we will treat the subject in the broad
strokes that Mr. Vance used and
thereby simply confirm readers’ cur
rent beliefs. If I have doubts about
affirmative action and I read a cot*
umn such as “Admission of guilt,” my
doubts will be reinforced. I won’t be
challenged to question my ideas or to
explore the issues any further.
I hope that everyone in the United
States agrees that equality of oppor
tunity is basic to our form of govern
ment. As far as I can see, that agree
ment does not conflict with a broader
consideration of talents than simply
whatever is measured by ACT scores
in admitting a person to college.
Others are found in the arts, as well as
in other areas of human potential.
Diversitv of culture is one of those
talents that higher education legiti
mately can include in determining
admission. Race is an imperfect indi
cation of cultural background. I
would prefer a better measure.
A survey of all published studies
will reveal that less than one-third of
the variability in college grades is
predicted by entrance exam scores.
While college grades fare a little bet
ter, they are far from perfect also.
Thus, in my view, two things are
wrong with die claim that affirmative
action is lowering admission stan
dards. It assumes that: 1) admission
should be based on the sole talent of
intellectual ability (even here, there is
more than one type - mathematical,
verbal, visual, etc.); and 2) the mea
sures we use of intellect are highly
valid and reliable.
Ideally, we should be discussing
these issues widely and publicly on
this campus, especially this month
during Black History Month. That
discussion will be taking place in
some of the events scheduled for this
campus and the city this month. John
Harris can send a list to anyone inter
ested enough to ask.
Short of that ideal, all of us can
restrain our impulse to treat such sub
jects lighdy and superficially.
coordinator of career counseling
Career Services Center
Powered by Open ONI