More unwanteds...
Long-haired freaky people (and others) still need not apply
TIM SULLIVAN is a third
year law student and a
Daily Nebraskan colum
nist
This whole thing just gets more
absurd every day.
Three weeks ago, I told you about
Thayne Glenn, the third-year law stu
dent who was denied permission to
participate in the UNL College of Law
Criminal Clinic program because his
hair was too long.
Gary Lacey, the local county attor
ney, refused to let Thayne take the
course. By his own admission, long
haired people simply weren’t allowed.
But as I said, this whole situation
just gets more absurd - and more
incredible - every day. Let me tell you
about another student who was denied
permission to take the Criminal Clinic
program this semester.
His name is Stacy L. Williams.
He’s another third-year law student
His story is a little different than
Thayne’s, but he was denied permis
sion to participate in the Criminal
Clinic this semester as well.
Stacy, unlike Thayne, did not par
ticipate in the lottery last fall for a
place in the Criminal Clinic this
spring. Instead, Stacy was approached
by a law school professor after the lot
tery results were in and was told that
spaces were available because not
enough students had requested the
course. The professor wanted to know
if Stacy wanted in, and Stacy said yes.
Alicia Henderson, director of die
UNL College of Law Criminal Clinic
program, told Stacy he couldn’t get in
because of his employer. Stacy works
as a law cleric for Herb Friedman.
Mr. Friedman is a local attorney
who handles personal injury cases. To
make it clearer for the purposes of this
discussion, Mr. Friedman doesn’t han
dle any criminal matters.
“I couldn’t get in because of my
employer,” Stacy told me. “Something
to do with the Child Advocacy
Center,” he said.
So now I’m curious. What was it
about the Child Advocacy Center,
Gary Lacey and Herb Friedman that
would constitute reasonable grounds
for denying Stacy Wiliams the educa
tional opportunity of participating in
the Criminal Clinic?
Now, I know there are rules gov
erning the conduct of lawyers. For
example, the Nebraska Supreme Court
has adopted much of the Model Code
of Professional Responsibility. These
are the rules that govern the conduct
and ethics of lawyers. (I know some of
you find that a little hard to believe,
but it really is true.) Some of those
rules deal with conflicts of interest.
Now, there are two types of rules
within the Nebraska Code of
Professional Responsibility. One type
is the EC, or ethical consideration.
These are meant to be guideposts for
lawyers; they are encouraged to aspire
to the level of professional and ethical
conduct the EC prescribes.
The other type is the DR, or disci
plinary rule. These are the rules that
the bar association and the Nebraska
Supreme Court can discipline a lawyer
for violating.
So why am I talking about EC’s
and DR’s?
Well, Gary Lacey is claiming that
he kept Stacy Williams out of Criminal
Clinic this semester because of one of
those rules.
Let me explain. Gary Lacey is on
the Board of Directors of the Child
Advocacy Center, a nonprofit corpora
tion that contracts with the police,
sheriff, the county attorney s office and
others to investigate allegations of
abuse involving children.
Herb Friedman had a bit of a run
in with Gary Lacey last year in a dis
pute involving the Child Advocacy
Center.
Herb Friedman owned property in
an area that had an owner’s association.
The Child Advocacy Center wanted to
move into a house within that associa
tion’s jurisdiction and near Friedman’s
property.
Friedman, on behalf of the owner’s
association, opposed the Child
Advocacy Center being located there
because, as he alleged, it violated local
zoning ordinances. The matter was
never litigated, though, and Friedman
and Lacey resolved their dispute with
out any legal action whatsoever.
Now Lacey claimed to me that the
reason Stacy Williams was denied per
mission to take Criminal Clinic was
because there were “ongoing negotia
tions with Mr. Friedman concerning
complaints he had regarding the way
the advocacy center was being refur
bished,” and that “the potential for liti
gation was a possibility.”
I also spoke with Friedman about
the situation. Mr. Friedman said that
the owner’s association opposed the
Child Advocacy Center because it vio
lated zoning ordinances.
As to Stacy Williams’ situation,
Friedman said, “I didn’t know Lacey
was upset about it until Stacy came to
me— I didn’t realize that he’d be tak
ing that personal, but if he did, he did.”
I didn’t think there appeared to be
any conflict which would violate the
Code of Professional Responsibility,
and asked Herb Friedman if he agreed
with me. He said that yes, he agreed
with me. His office does not handle
criminal cases and he doesn’t under
stand how there could be a conflict
Well, now. This sounds like a pri
vate dispute between Gary Lacey and
Herb Friedman to me. And Stacy
Williams suffered the consequences by
being denied permission to take the
Criminal Clime course.
' The applicable rules found in the
Nebraska Code of Professional
Responsibility are not supportive of
Gary Lacey’s position at all. Not one
iota.
The applicable rule can be found at
DR 5-109. This is the disciplinary rule
that addresses conflicts of interest as to
support personnel of a law firm. “Law
clerics” are included in the definition
of support personnel for the purposes
of the rule.
First of all, The Child Advocacy
Center is not a client of the County
Attorney’s Office. Second, even if it
was, Stacy Williams may or may not
have acquired confidential information
regarding the owner’s association. He
was never asked or given the opportu
nity to demonstrate otherwise.
Let’s face it, folks. It looks like
Gary Lacey was angry with Herb
Friedman for opposing him over the
zoning of the Child Advocacy Center.
So it seems Stacy Williams was denied
a public educational opportunity
because of a private dispute between
Gary Lacey and Herb Friedman.
And don’t forget about Thayne
Glenn.
Thayne Glenn will give the
University of Nebraska College of
Law until the end of month to do
something about the discrimination
against him on the basis of the length
of his hair. After that, the gloves come
off and the fight in the courtroom
begins.
On Monday, the law school held a
faculty meeting. Myself. Thayne
Glenn, Paul Wess, a f rst-year law stu
dent, and leva Augstums. a Daily
Nebraskan senior staff writer, attended
the portion of the faculty meeting dur
ing which the issue ofThayne’s hair
was discussed.
Professor John Snowden was the
first to speak. He wanted to know the
story behind the “other” student who
was denied permission to take the
course. Well, now he knows.
Professor John Lenich said he sup
ported Gary Lacey’s decision and that
the law school shouldn’t do anything to
jeopardize the program.
Professor Steven Willbom, who
specializes in employment discrimina
tion, moved to adjourn the meeting on
the grounds that die faculty lacked suf-'
ficient information to take any of the
actions proposed. That motion carried
the day.
Well, here’s some more informa
tion.
It seems to me that Gary Lacey and
the College of Law, through its
Criminal Clinic Director Alicia
Henderson, discriminates against stu
dents for other than legitimate reasons.
It*strikes me that if you’re a long
haired freaky person, or if your boss
had a run-in with Gary Lacey, you’ll
be denied an educational opportunity.
Chancellor James Moeser told me
he does not plan to take any action
because the “faculty has not really
come to clear determination on the
issue.”
Dennis Keefe, Lancaster County
public defender, said that if hair length
were an issue, he would “have to elimi
nate half of the people I’ve hired over
the years as law clerks.”
Sen. Ernie Chambers told me,
“I’m upset that the law school won't
get out of that program
I’m with you, Ernie
Suicidal tendencies
Death should not be ruled out as final option for those in severe physical, psychological pain
MATT PETERSON is a
senior English and news
editorial major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
To be or not to be?
It is a decision each of us faces
every day, whether we know it or not
Fortunately, for the majority of us,
health and happiness render the ques
tion rhetorical.
But for those suffering from physi
cal or mental anguish, the decision is
as legitimate as their pain. Indeed, for
many the question offers the only lucid
foothold in the excruciating maelstrom
that is their existence.
However, the solutions to their
problems are not nearly as distinct,
falling, as they must, under the juris
diction of the law. Although the legali
ty of suicide is questionable, physi
cian-assisted suicide has often - and
a|bitrarily - been considered a crim£
This is a crime iif itself. The solu
tion to the plight of those suffering
from terminal pain or severe depres
sion should be carefully regulated
physician-assisted suicide - death
should never be deemed a panacea, but
it also should never be ruled out as the
final option.
Unfortunately, the law of the land
has consistently opposed this option
and, thus, effectively made the
Hippocratic oath, the creed defining
the obligations of those in the medical
profession, ineffective.
For how is a doctor to compromise
“the good of the sick” with the obliga
tion to “perform no operation, for a
criminal purpose, even if solicited”?
Like any other medical treatment,
death should not be ruled out as a
“cure” and must be a matter of careful
prognosis.
The frightening extreme to be
avoided if physician-assisted suicide is
legalized is the sort of unrestrained
euthanasia found in the Netherlands.
Euthanasia is defmed as causing
death painlessly so as to end suffering
and is typically performed without the
consent of the sufferer; this is a con
cept far removed from the ideal of
carefully regulated assistance.
While physician-assisted suicide in
the Netherlands began with seemingly
good intentions in the early 1970s,
standards have gradually been com
promised by doctors and, subsequent
ly, the courts.
Babies bom with Down’s syn
drome and spina bifida are now rou
tinely euthanized, and
comatose patients
have some
times been put
to death with
out individual
or familial con
r^In 1^0, dutch
doctors were involved
in nearly 10 percent of
deaths in the country,
half of which were clas
sified “involuntary
euthanasia”, in
which no con
sent was given
by the patient.
American physi
cians have tended toward more con
straint, standing by medicinal science
to ease suffering. For while the
American Medical Association con
demns physician-assisted suicide, it
also stands by this statement:
“It is ethical for physicians to pro
vide effective pain medication even if
the medication may have the side
effect of suppressing respiration and
hastening death.”
If severely depressed or terminally
ill patients request immediate death
rather than Thorazine- or morphine
induced stupor, how can they be
denied?
This is not to say that assisted sui
cide should never be denied. •
Considering that the most common
justification for suicide is not terminal
illness or intense physical pain, but
severe depression, the regulation of
physician assistance should involve
exhaustive psychological
evaluation. ]
The majority of people !
who kill themselves suffer from men
tal illness that often goes undiagnosed
and untreated. Indeed, suicide is a cry
for help that goes unanswered if suc
cessful.
But if assisted suicide were pre
sented as a legal option, perhaps those
who suffer from suicidal tendencies
would seek medical attention rather
than carrying the act out themselves.
Opponents of physician-assisted
suicide would also point to
Hippocratic obligation for support on
the basis of the following words:
“exercise your art solely for the cure of
your patients.”
TTiis is certainly ideal - patients
who choose to die should be well
aware of their chances and options and
he offered the best care
trie medicine has to
And above all,
icy should maintain
[ their unalienable
right to choose
between life and
x death.
StAug
y I ustine branded
/ suicide a crime
/ / in the fourth
/ I century, and
/ / our 20®-century
-/--s&cietyhasffem'
/ dered it a taboo,
I offering its many
/ victims compassion
I rather than damna
tion.
" ' Such mercy
gf* should prescribe
|offering relief to
^ j those in pain, but
7 | it is more accept
1. i able to pity those
who needed help
and, thus, ignore
those who need help.
Pain and hopelessness are quite
debilitating, and their victims often do
need help to bring about a solution.
And if a victim has faith in something
better after death, saving her dignity
becomes more important than saving
her life.
Bob Ohlrich of Deshler thought so,
and he took a .22-caliber pistol and the
law into his own hands.
On Oct. 27,1998, Ohlrich killed
his wife of 56 years, wlio had been
diagnosed with colon cancer in May of
the same year. He then attempted to
turn the gun on himsel f. The pistol
malfunctioned, and Ohlrich now faces
manslaughter charges, up to 20 years
in prison and a $25,000fine.
An autopsy revealed that the can
cer that had often caused Phyllis
Ohlrich more pain than she could
stand was no longer present at the time
of her death. But whether her cancer
was cured or simply in remission is .
irrelevant - Bob Ohlrich saw his wife
in pain and acted to end it.
-Ohlrich left suicide notes, and his
intention to join his wife seems sin
cere. Of course, die suicide notes also
prove premeditation, and a chaige of
first-degree murder would seem war
ranted; indeed, this was the initial
chaige until Ohlrich pleaded no con- (
ttettomansldb^itet'. ! - ni^u <
‘To me, time don’t mean anything
whether I’m in jail or not.” said
Ohlrich, who is 76.
So the system will put this old man
in prison and likely put him on suicide
watch. And maybe after a few years of
rehabilitation he will have learned his
lesson, although I’m not sure what that
lesson would be.
Compassion dictated the system
offer Ohlrich a lesser sentence, but
compassion should have offered both
Ohlrichs a better option.