Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (April 1, 1998)
EDITOR Paula Lavigne OPINION EDITOR Kasey Kerber EDITORIAL BOARD Brad Davis Erin Gibson Shannon Heffelfinger Chad Lorenz Jeff Randall - Our VIEW Open door policy UNL judicial system should mirror reality Students frequently are told by faculty members and administrators that the costs, responsibilities and pressures of university life are natural ways of preparing us for post-college reality. The university’s disciplinary sys tem, therefore, also should be made as real as possible and resemble the nation’s legal system. A bill in the U.S. Congress would do that by changing how universities handle reporting crimes on campus. But the University of Nebraska Lincoln and other universities are criticizing the plan because it would open private student judicial proceed ings, which are closed to protect the interests of the universities. James Griesen, vice chancellor for Student Affairs, said opening those disciplinary proceedings “would be very dangerous for all involved,” including the witnesses. In the so-called real world for which we are preparing, such legal proceedings would geflerally be wide . opeii.tp tfie.pqblic and press. This is, 3li one area in which the university should not be sheltering its students. Some have argued that universi ties would rather conceal certain crimes - those that don’t appear on the official police blotter. Incidents such as drinking on campus and minor assaults between students could be handled quietly and off the record. The apparent benefit: When a uni- - versity reports its annual crime statis tics, they appear lower than they per haps are. The only way to accurately evalu ate the amount of crime on campus is to open wide all records. Therefore, ~ student judicial hearings should be open. That way, disciplinary power at the university cannot be abused. And, opening the hearings will not jeopardize justice any more than such rules do in real-life .court.. Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Spring 1998 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 serves 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 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. if/ Letter Ptlicy 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 | ftoy, feorieT^ I 1W) "B* J Wm# y*. M Ho Mois B.S. / fj — DN LETTERS HI take neither... Part I I think that Malcolm Kass and Klaus Marre’s exchange on Monday was really pathetic. Neither one of them, through their arguments, really proved anything except how to make weak appeals to people’s emotions. Kass makes leaps into scientific -examination worthy of a gazelle, and ■ Marre just seemed to be whining throughout his entire article. When will the Daily Nebraskan actually address this issue seriously, rather than have people rant and rave? Marie E. Buhrdorf, senior classics HI take neither... part II Both Malcolm Kass, in his defense of the existence of a god, and Klaus Marre, in his refutation of the idea, make unstated assumptions and condi tions (DN, Monday). And they speak to different aspects of the question. Kass points out that some things in science are not well-understood, and says that, therefore, they must be accounted for by something supernatur al. Aside from the point that pushing back the frontiers of the un-understood is what science is all about, his notion is sterile — it has no consequences. For even if one accepted the idea of a great-inventor-in-the-sky, that says nothing about any other characteristics of the god. In particular, itdoesn’t imply that the god intervenes in the affairs of people, or that anything at all in the Bible is accurate. Marie emphasizes the injustice, suf fering and cruelty that exists, and claims not at all aigue against god. It only aigues against a god which is all of the following: (a) concerned with human affairs, (b) able to do something about them and (c) benevolent in its actions. People have invented many gods that have only some of those char acteristics, and Marre’s argument does n’t refute the existence of such gods. Edgar Pearlstein professor of physics, emeritus Two sides to the coin A recent article, “Griesen: Crime reporting act is flawed” by Josh Funk, (about campus-crime-reporting legisla tion currently pending in the U.S. Congress) presents a disappointingly one-sided perspective on the issue. James Griesen, the UNL vice chan cellor for student affairs, is quoted in opposition to the bill, which is known as the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act, or ACCRA, but no one who is in favor of this proposal is quot ed. The ACCRA bill has a wide base of national support, including the nearly 70 U.S. Representatives mentioned in the article, the Society for Professional Journalists, the National Victim Center and, our organization, Security On Campus. We have found that many campus administrations are very image con scious and will exploit every opportuni ty to conceal the truth about crime on their campuses. Griesen complains that having cam pus officials, other than campus police, report crimes would be a problem. While the ACCRA bill does clarify this in the statute, the U.S. Department of Education, which enforces the cur rent security disclosure law, has already ruled that schools must do this. This is necessary because many campus crimes are dealt with through ^ means other thjjnthe campus security office. WhilFperftaps thfcs&rfiftsms serve expedience, they also can serve to hide crime. He also complains that ACCRA’S provisions opening campus courts would “cripple” them and that “people” won’t understand the difference between campus courts and criminal courts. While we believe students are intel ligent enough to make this distinction, perhaps we can see why he thinks this as ■ they are also “adjudicating” crimes even as serious as rape. At the only school in the country, with open hearings, subject to the order of the state Supreme Court (the University of Georgia), this has not been the case. In fact, we believe that this situation, while it may have changed them some what, has made them more honest. Only with open hearings will honesty and justice for all be ensured. Allowing those students who choose to make informed decisions about safety access to honest and timely information will help prevent them from becoming victims; this is how it would be in any other community and students deserve no less. However it doesn’t look like he needs to worry this year. Several of ACCRA’S provisions have been incor porated into an omnibus higher educa tion bill that is expected to be voted on by the Congress later this month, but hearings won’t be opened. We have been promised by the com mittee’s chairman, Rep. William Goodling (R-PA), that they will address this “next year.” But by then how many more students will have been caught j unaware and needlessly victimized? Even one would be too many. If 3T60 t'rrob I S. Daniel Carter, vice president Security On Campus, Inc. _ PS Write I f —^ , I • ■ , ■ . / . a - ■ •
