Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 7, 1998)
EDITOR Erin Gibson OPINION EDITOR Cliff Hicks EDITORIAL BOARD Nancy Christensen Brad Davis Sam McKewon Jeff Randall Bret Schulte ine case in question is Chicago v. Morales, which the court has agreed to hear this session. And the question is whether the city of Chicago, with strong support from parents in poor and minority neighbor hoods, can enact an anti-loitering law in an attempt to curb gang violence. Under the law, a police officer can order anyone to move along if he or she is “rea sonably (believed) to be a criminal street gang member loitering in any public place with one or more other persons.” Anyone who resists can be arrested. Officers have arrested 40,000 people for resisting the law since it was enacted in 1992. This is not a youth curfew; it is a restric tion against any people gathering at any time in a public place, regardless of whether that gathering is peaceful or not and regardless of the individuals’ actions - be they eating sandwiches, voicing unpopular political opinions or planning gang-related crimes and violence. The sole determining factor of whether people will be allowed to gather in a public place under the law is their appearance and assumed affiliation. We believe this restric tion is an unfair restriction of some civil lib erties, but it may uphold others at the same time. This law seems to pit one civil right - the right to peaceably assemble - against anoth er right established in the founding of the United States, which is the right of citizens to willingly give up some individual liber ties in order to empower the state. The state then can effectively protect and govern its citizens. The Supreme Court, during the Civil Rights Movement, established a right to loi ter. Otherwise, neighborhoods, counties and states could prohibit activists from gathering peaceably. In theory, the Chicago laws could do the same. The laws’ intent is to curb gang violence, but the laws attack civil liberties instead of the root problem, which is die development of gangs as social and economic units that provide for their members, as well as terror ize their enemies and neighborhoods. For seme teens, gangs replace a lacking family structure. For others, gangs provide ego-saving status and income that staves off poverty. Gangs and gang violence are serious symptoms of an ill society. But their poison cannot be salved by a quick-fix anti-loiter ing law that pushes the problem out of the public sight without addressing it. We don’t claim to know the appropriate antidote to gangs in America, but it cannot be a reduction of liberty and justice for all. Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Spring 1998 Daly Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its student body or the Univeiky 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. Letter Fancy The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not auarantee 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, 1100 R St Lincoln, NE. C8538-0418. E-mail: letters® unlii ifo.unl.edu. Our VIEW No loitering Chicago hopes law will halt gang violence The U.S. Supreme Court soon could decide the fate of anti-loitering laws by handing down a decision on one Chicago case. Mook’s VIEW (sqwe mtatic] ,\HtkTBIEfm CHICKEN, I ^AT HOIKS I AH IKE J r| uku Tam a f \MWf / HKE niff SME| iwwmiM I jweuxwio I RKt A CHBBJ. I DN LETTERS Quiet the Hooters Regarding Tasha Kuxhausen’s defense of Hooters in Monday’s Opinion section: Actually, it isn’t amazing that community members would be con cerned that Hooters is a sexist estab lishment. Sexism is the oppression of one sex by another. In a patriarchal society (like the one in which we live), sexism is the oppression of women by men. Sexual objectifica tion of women is dehumanizing, and therefore oppressive. It is true that men are from time to time objectified sexually, but not nearly to the extent or with the insti tutional reinforcement that women are. Such is the nature of patriarchy. The problem is not that Hooters’ servers’ uniforms are going to incite large-scale sexual assault. Sexual violence against women is already large-scale and has been for millen nia. Establishments such as Hooters and slightly more blatant strip bars only give credence to the idea that women are sexual objects, thus con tributing to the culture of rape. If men are taught to think of women as base, sexual objects (as they indeed are), sexual assault is more likely to occur. As Ms. Kuxhausen pointed out, rape is a power issue, not purely sex ual. But the oppres sion inherent in this rape culture is by definition a power issue. Sex, or sexual assault and domination, rather, is the vehicle for this wielding of power-over. Rape / is the final, most explicitly vio lent manifestation of patriarchy. Hooters, and similar businesses, are crucial to the reinforcement of rape culture precisely because of their (I use this word grudgingly) subtlety. I don’t find any aspect of rape culture tastefiil or entertaining, and I think it is insulting to make such a claim. Hooters is sexist by the very nature of its concept. Andrew Aschcrl freshman women’s studies Munson-mania So here’s the thing. I just read the opinion column in today’s DN, and it was absolutely twisted. Having said that, I probably should add that I read it eight more times for kicks, just because it pleased me that much. As I sit here pondering my daily ritual of going through the DN and looking for anything from Todd to read first (and then proceed to read the rest of the fine examples of jour nalism held within), it occurs to me that I may actually be a Munson Groupee. Go ahead and laugh. I did. The fact of the matter is that sometimes I look through the pages, and upon not seeing anything from the demented planet of Todd, I close the paper and set it on the desk next to me and sulk. I am not a psycho. I do not nor mally gush like this to people whom I don’t know. I just thought I had been enjoying Todd for way too long with out him actually knowing about it (damn, that sounded perverse). Congratulations on filling - /J Q> rlijU : the days of UNL’s student body with laughter and entertainment, and I hope that the pages of the DN contin ue to hold these warped messages until hell freezes over, or at least until I graduate, which incidentally, may actually be the same day. Mikaela Charbonneau senior middle grades education Hootin’ habit headed off Kudos to Erin Reitz. O.K., I give up ... As a long-time customer at Hooters (from Hawaii to Florida and all points in between) I must admit that I’ve felt a certain guilt about my patronage. Yes, I know it’s sleazy (upscale sleazy though), and I know it’s discrimina tory (note the bounty of Barbies and the lack of Oprahs). These things I do recognize. In fact, I ate at one in my adopted hometown of San Antonio, Texas, just last night. But for the love of God you have to believe me when I tell you, THEY ARE REALLY GOOD WINGS!!!!! I guess I just don’t know anymore ... While my . fiancee hasn’t told me !jLX>v. that I can’t go to a Ip : nooters, sne nas hj- made her opinion K (scarily similar to Bfr yours) very clear to me. If there’s anyone ■k on this planet whose Wm respect I want more, 1 | can’t imagine it. So Ijfip this I pledge to my Ppp fiancee, my mother Wmt (Susan Hilt, nrnning Wmk for Lancaster Hr County Clerk [Rock the vote!!!]), my sis ter (Shannon Hilt, Kappa Delta & a 's. student at UNL) ^ 0f course to p ': you, Erin Reitz, ■■■ Hooters will not receive another penny of my hard ^ earned wages.... There I’ve said jfe'' it. Now, about that S|| subscription to Playboy ... You know m I really do buy it just P% for the articles. BrettS. Baker reporter'prod t:cer Air Force Tc!ev&£* j News
