EDITOR
Erin Gibson
OPINION
EDITOR
Cliff Hicks
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Nancy Christensen
Brad Davis
Sam McKewon
Jeff Randall
Bret Schulte
Our
VIEW
Cry foul
Civil duty calls for
president s resignation
Last week must have been a tough one for
President Bill Clinton with White House
lawyers denying his newest alleged crime.
After all, if they hadn’t denied it, folks
might have lent some weight to Juanita
Broaddrick’s charge that the president raped
her 21 years ago in an Arkansas hotel room.
Folks might have demanded the President
resign.
But, apparently, that won’t happen for
William “Teflon” Clinton. How sad for
America.
Not that any resignation would be justi
fied by just the facts of Broaddrick’s charges.
There, the president will remain innocent.
Why? Because he can’t be proven guilty by an
outdated case lacking evidence - even if,
behind it all, stands a retired nursing home
director with an honest face and a rather
believable charge.
No medical examination records or any
other evidence can substantiate Broaddrick’s
claim. Plus, she can’t file charges - Arkansas
has a six-year statute of limitations on sexual
assault. Then again, she doesn’t seem like
she’d want to. She has said she only came for
ward so Americans would know “what kind
of man (Clinton) is.”
I Oh, but we already know he’s an unethical
adulterer with a penchant for telling tall tales
whenever his Arkie butt needs saving. That
doesn’t seem to matter as long as he’s in
office, and his power lends him credibility.
Broaddrick doesn’t get that luxury. She
proclaimed herself a victim with no evidence
after the Bamum and Bailey of political cir
cuses. She could be a lying pawn. She could
be scheming just to rake in some dough,
although she’s refused money so far. She
could be secretly bankrolled by that same vast
right-wing conspiracy that gives Hillary terri
ble nightmares.
Or - just maybe - she could be telling the
truth about her own real nightmare. That’s
irrelevant to the courts at this stage, but it
shouldn’t be irrelevant to the American people.
Why? Because when the charges arose,
people rolled their eyes at yet another White
House denial. Because people thought, “Jane
Doe No. 5? Geez! What did he do to Nos. 1,
2. 3 and 4?” Some thought, “Another one?
Oh, big surprise.”
Reactions proved people have abandoned
all faith in their president and commander in
chief.
Thus, the charges aren’t weighty them
selves, but they are relevant because the pub
lic reaction to them proves how Clinton has
ruined the integrity of his office and can no
longer lead effectively. Any dunce knows a
system breaks down without credible leader
ship.
So please, write your state Congressmen
and Congresswomen. Tell them Bill should
move over and out. Tell them he made his
moves, and they weren’t good for America.
Tell them the pressure to resign should be
crushing.
Just be sure to say, “Get him out of here!”
Please. It’s past time.
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Spring 1999 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.
letter Policy
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.
1 Brookins’
VIEW
-Ls'
DN
LETTERS
Owning up
Yes, we did it.
The “feminazi” flier promoting
Bay Buchanan’s visit to campus last
week was approved and distributed by
the College Republicans executive
board and other CR members. We take
full responsibility for it. We do con
cede, our name should have been
included somewhere on it, and we
apologize for any confusion the omis
sion may have created.
However, all apologies end there.
We will never apologize for the con
tent of the flier or for exercising our
right to free speech.
On Friday, Barbara DiBemard, an
associate professor of English and
women’s studies, misrepresented and
took out of context the flier’s meaning
in a letter to the editor. She included in
that letter excerpts of the flier she
claimed made the piece “threatening,”
and she left out excerpts that would
have instantly nullified this claim. If
she had responsibly included the flier’s
entire contents, it would have been
apparent to any sensible person, per
haps even a women’s studies profes
sor, that “feminazis” were to best
“beware” BECAUSE their radical
views were about to be exposed by
Buchanan.
The word ^g^unazi is widely
misunderstood by most as referring to
all feminists. Not so. Rush Limbaugh,
the man who coined the term, defines
it as ah especially radical feminist to
whom the most important thing in life
is ensuring that as many abortions as
possible occur. In see
ing that their mission
is carried out, these &
“feminazis” often use /
Naziesque tactics to
suppress any speech •
that contradicts their
own.
DiBemard lacked
any personal knowl
edge regarding
Buchanan’s speech and
based her criticism
upon hearsay.
Lastly, we want to
say we are disappoint
ed in the lack of
open-mindedness
and tolerance
shown by some
members of this
campus for viewpoints
they disagree with.
Are we sorry about
the contents of the flier?
Not one bit.
ft
Josh Moenning
junior
advertising and
political science
UNL CR secre
tary
Rick Parsons
junior
accounting
UNL CR chairman
Rush Limbaugh revisited
A letter in (Friday’s) Daily
Nebraskan from Barbara DiBemard,
protesting the poster, is characteristi
cally dishonest.
(1) DiBemard claims the poster is
threatening. She tries to demonstrate
this by quoting the poster, which said
“...^Feminazis, you best beware,”
making it appear to be a vague, and
rather sinister, threat. However,
DiBemard truncated the rest of the
text, which goes on to say, “You’re
about to be exposed. Bay Buchanan is
coming to town.” Editing the text to
make the threat appear to be general,
rather than a specific threat of expo
sure, is a classic example of the sort of
intellectual dishonesty for which fem
inism is notorious, and which is a
strong factor in the lack of intellectual
respect accorded to women’s studies.
(2) DiBemard claims the poster is
“inappropriate.” “Inappropriate” is the
great pejorative of the ’90s, used when
one doesn’t like something but can’t
make a strong case why it should be
banned. The poster was quite deliber
ately tongue-in-cheek, an example of
good ol’ fashioned rabble-rousing
which has Strong
tradition in IT
American
political culture.
The word “feminazi” was coined
by Rush Limbaugh, originally to refer
to feminists who seemed eager to
maximize the abortion rate, but it
obviously has hit a chord with the gen
eral populace, a chord which our
women’s studies faculty have done lit
tle to diminish. Not stated in
DiBemard’s letter was that one faculty
member in that program filed a report
with the University Police to try to
suppress the poster. If one resents
comparison with Nazis, might I
humbly suggest that using the police
to suppress speech one doesn’t like is
not a good way to prove one’s case?
(3) The College Republicans were
indeed negligent in not putting the
name of the organization on the poster,
but it is my understanding that they
take full responsibility for it, and have
no intention of disavowing it or of
going through the “show-trial” exer
cise of expressing contrition for it.
(4) DiBemard apparently resents
the fact the poster was posted on doors
and bulletin boards of the Women’s
Studies program. While no doubt they
would like to exclude the rest of the
world from their sanctum, the
Women’s Studies program is part of
the university, and their doors and bul
letin boards are no different than the
bulletin boards, say, in the department
of chemistry. Two years ago, when the
Women’s Studies official student
organization were papering the cam
pus with a poster depicting a white,
male, college-age student with text
reading: “Safety alert: this is a
composite of the average
rapist,” going on to warn
women to avoid the
"environs of the athletic
department and of fra
ternities lest they be
raped. They posted it
all over my building,
including on bulletin
boards reserved for
' other purposes.
Now, that was hate
speech.
This is America,
DiBernard.
Feminist-inspired
Orwellian tactics of
suppressing contrary
^ views by making the
form of their expres
sion illegal have been
struck down by the Supreme Court. If
you don’t like the speech, try to rebut
it. But be advised that attempts to sup
press it by dishonestly misrepresent
ing it, or by using the university police
or judiciary, will surely fail.
Gerry Harbison
professor of chemistry
College Republicans adviser
Melanie Falk/DN
