Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (April 6, 1999)
EDITOR Erin Gibson OPINION EDITOR Cliff Hicks EDITORIAL BOARD Nancy Christensen Brad Davis Sam McKewon Jeff Randall Bret Schulte ’ Our VIEW Graham vs. Goliath One person can be an instrument of change On March 28, a man died. He wasn’t terribly famous. Millions did n’t mourn his death, and flags didn’t fly at half mast. But he proved one person can effect sig nificant change, and we think he ranks among the greatest role models of the 20th century. The man was Henry V. Graham, the National Guard general who told Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace that he would have to step aside from his “stand in the school house door” on June 11,1963. That “stand” was Wallace confronting federal authorities at the University of Alabama in Montgomery when they tried to enroll two black students, James Hood and Vivian Malone. Wallace stood with his arms stiff at his sides and declared, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation for ever.” Graham informed the governor he would have to enroll the students. He stood up to the governor’s hatred in that doorway. It wasn’t the first time Graham, one man, had made a difference. In 1961, he and the National Guard had helped calm a white mob when Freedom Riders arrived at a Montgomery bus station. In 1965, he and some guardsmen escorted voting rights marchers from Selma to Montgomery. A few weeks before, the marchers had been gassed and clubbed on Bloody Sunday. Within a decade of Graham’s showdown in the doorway, Wallace’s tune had changed. Ten years later, he crowned Terry Points as the university’s first black homecoming queen. In 1991, he said in an interview he regretted his stance against integration. After that “stand in the schoolhouse door,” Wallace remained a political legend, mounting a significant bid for president in 1972. When he died Sept. 13,1998, his body was laid in state in the Alabama Capitol. Meanwhile, Graham left the limelight and was a real estate dealer in Birmingham before his death in a local nursing home. Often, it doesn’t seem that one person out of the limelight can make a difference. It doesn’t seem as if one student’s work towards diversity and cultural understanding could accomplish much. And it doesn’t seem that one teacher changing his or her course material to better reflect the diversity of our world and nation will leave a lasting mark. Graham proved that David still can slay Goliath. He showed that a person who does the right thing, making small steps towards recognizing humanity and human rights, will eventually accomplish a great feat. He was the first to make Wallace step aside of his anti-segregation stance. Graham won a significant battle in the war on racism. ' Graham should be celebrated as a politi cal hero; he should be remembered by future generations and historians. 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. Babin’s VIEW ViELU SUPPOSE W DEPENDS ON WRT YDUR DffNnON OF QUR6MIRE IS.., 0 J'.f DN LETTERS Show me love Take a moment to think about the definition of family Jessica Flanagain (“Failing Families,” DN, April 1) promotes as the ideal. “An enduring commitment % between a man and a woman.” Isn’t it odd love doesn’t neces sarily need to be a part of her equation? A loveless commit ment that endures, say, for the sake of the children or because a woman can’t bring herself to leave her abusive husband still fits in Flanagain’s otherwise narrow def inition. But who would say it is an ideal situation? I’m tired of peo ple citing studies that link fatherless fami lies to an array of soci etal ills and automatically associating the results with gay and lesbian parents. Most likely, the condi tions these studies report are caused less by the absence of a live-in father and more by issues of aban donment and the limited resources (not only of money, but time and attention, etc.) of the remaining parent. Stuart Kujath loves his gay mom. Presumably, his gay mom loves Stuart. If Stuart is raised in an environment where he knows he is loved and valued for who he is, his future is not as dim as Flanagain sup poses. as Mr. Ferate’s blathering. I am a deeply conservative Republican. I believe the Great Society programs of our parents and grandparents are in desperate need of overhaul. To look at me, you would judge me to be a Caucasian. Based on these statements, Mr. Ferate and Mr. Rempe would presumably both con clude I am part of the “extreme right wing,” as Mr. Rempe puts it. They would therefore be making the same where did vou come error - one bom from the same sort of close-minded intel lectual superiority shared by both men. You see, gentlemen, as is the case for intellectual adults who reside in the real world, my political beliefs are the result of careful con sideration and personal experi ence. The Great Society pro grams, in my opinion, require renovation because our country can no longer afford the fis cal abuses of these systems I myself have seen. I am well aware of the danger any such changes would present for those who rely on these pro grams to get back on their feet. However, I believe the need to end their abuse is ter than the risk to a few who Dave Gilsdorf alumnus class of 1991 Wake up I’d like to take a moment to offer some advice to the enlightened socio political policy fools that have graced the opinion pages with their thoughts in the last few days. To Mr. Rempe and Mr. Ferate, and to all those who have likewise expressed such bold senti ments as have been shared by these fellows, I offer a suggestion: Any time you would like to join the real world, please feel free. Having hashed my way through the oblique and semi-literate argu ments the two of you have put forth, I find myself unwilling to take either of you too seriously. Mr. Ferate, exactly up with such Neolithic, homophobic tripe? It is an unfortunate fact that your position in such a “powerful” organization as the College Republicans lends you the automatic authority to spout stereotypical hatreds, thereby eroding public confi dence in the political party with which you are unfortunately affiliated. And Mr. Rempe, exactly why do you debase your justified outrage at such ludicrous suggestions by froth ing at the mouth at the Evil Conservative Caucasian Conspiracy? Every rational person on the campus knows Mr. Ferate was expressing anachronistic hate propaganda. Exactly how that translates into the equally ridiculous assertion on your part that it is conservatives who are the Great Satan is as much a mystery would otherwise benefit from the pro grams in question. It is the careful consideration of both the pros and the cons of each political opinion that separates empowered citizens of this country from the rote recitation of stereotypi cal sound bytes, which you two have been spewing in these pages over the Jast few days. In the future, I would ask that you consider your opinions before you dispense them from on high. If you cannot find the weakness es in what you are about to say, then perhaps you should seriously evaluate whether those opinions are your own - and, therefore, whether you wish to espouse them. Eric C. Odgaard graduate student psychology