Opinion
Salary
Catch-22
Moeser s complaints justified,
but past due
When it conies to evaluating Barry Collier’s contract as
Nebraska men’s basketball coach, know two things: It could
have been worse, /pid better.
At $200,000 per year, Collier came cheaper than most.
Granted, when his total pay package (including endorsements
and bonuses) is tallied up, his pay will be near the half-million
mark. Not bad for a coach who wouldn’t have to do anything
more than win a NCAA Tournament game to make fans
happy.
But that notion is causing grumbling among UNL aca
demics.
In Sunday’s Omaha World-Herald, Chancellor James
Moeser made it plain that he doesn’t think the 45-year-old
Collier should make more than he
Nebraska makes. Moeser wasn’t sure Collier
i j i jj should be making more than full pro
basketball fessors, either.
must Win, for ex^0mse'weagret Whatdld>'ou
money s sake. ™e*lso asree‘hat t0 Pav, >es,s
y probably means Collier wouldn t
coach here. Nebraska Athletic
Director Bill Byrne offered a measly salary to come to NU,
which isn’t exactly the culture capital of the universe. It might
mean sacrificing success to save money or sending the mes
sage that academics are just as important.
And right now, NU Athletics can’t afford to sacrifice suc
cess.
It can’t afford to let the millions poured into a brand new
Devaney Sports Center HuskerVision board system go for
naught. It can’t afford to see an elaborate Husker Walk of
Fame go unseen in empty concourses. It must make good on
its investment right now.
Nebraska basketball must win, for money’s sake. Or spon
sors will pull their plugs. That’s how business works.
We understand Moeser’s concern, but he’s complaining
too late in the game. Byrne has to get a quality coach, and he
has to pay quality money to get him. Otherwise, the Sports
Center goes the way of Charles Foster Kane’s Xanadu
Mansion.
There is no way out of this besides victory and spending
more money to ensure that victory. And if the spending too
much money on athletics is in itself a bad thing?
Well, then you’ve got a Catch-22: No way out without
winning, but winning itself a loss.
And no matter what Moeser thinks now, he can’t declare
the whole system crazy. By staying mostly silent through all
of the facility upgrades, Moeser and Co. essentially made
Barry’s bed. Now, for better and worse, they will lie in it.
Editorial Board
Josh Funk (editor) • J.J. Harder • Cliff Hicks • Samuel
McKewon • Dane Stickney • Kimberly Sweet • Lindsay
Young
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 sub
missions. Submitted material becomes property of the Daily
Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous material 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, 20 Nebraska Union,
1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448 or e-mail to:
letters@unl.edu
Editorial Policy^
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the spring 2000 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 col
umn is solely the opinion of its author. The Board of Regents
acts 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 publication
of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsi
bility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its student employees. The Daily Nebraskan
strives to print fair and accurate coverage; any corrections or
clarifications will be printed on page three.
f t
Obermeyer’s
VIEW
teAsot^ms mi NOT J° become am AV Model...
'fey Mofil, x Got f
?ia\Mfv parenthood 3&b' '
No, x’m Ivor teAu-y
SURE VJHfn nf5 FOR. j
All X HApTbVO IMS /
5 mie for the
PlCTUpE!
Letters to the
EDITOR
Christianity or Crew Club?
I felt that it is necessary to
respond to Jacob Glazeski’s “Gangs
of Faith.” (Friday) He writes of the
violation of the spirit of the
Constitution and that “all citizens
should be free to do what they want.”
However, Glazeski obviously means
those things for anyone who is not a
Christian.
The intolerance that he promotes
is unfortunate and sad. Christians tell
people about Jesus Christ and let
them know that they are loved, and it
is tearing Glazeski apart. I wonder
how much it bothers him when mem
bers of the UNL Crew Club go out
side, set up a display and promote
themselves.
Other organizations all have the
right to promote their self-interests,
but, according to Glazeski,
Christians should stay where they
belong - in church. Where is that
freedom that he keeps talking about?
I guess it only exists for people with
whom Glazeski agrees.
Randall S. Parsons
junior
computer science
Insiduous as Jesus
Jacob Glazeski compared two
supposedly Christian students talk
ing with another student to a brain
being sucked out of the head of a
fetus. Is Glazeski implying that
Christianity is so overwhelmingly
powerful that all those who
encounter it are helpless against its
“vacuum” strength?
Glazeski stated that the influence
of Christianity is felt most strongly in
our society through the government.
I admit this may be a valid claim,
however, there are numerous
Christians who would like to change
this trend.
Christianity should not actively
promote any political movement.
Forms of abortion and homosexuali
ty were practiced 2000 years ago, yet
try to find a verse of the Bible that
quotes Jesus discussing these issues.
All he did was share his message of
the necessity for repentance and the
offering of grace, and people fol
lowed.
I try to live my life as an example
of the love that was abundantly dis
played on the first Easter Sunday and
speak about my faith when the
opportunity is given to me.
Christians are people struggling
with issues in our lives just like
everyone else. However, we believe
we have been shown an indescribable
love and hope that cannot help but be
shared with others. May we be as
insiduous as Jesus has been to us.
Tim Heupel
junior
education
Wishing and believing
In reference to Betsy Severin’s
Friday article, “Untold Story,” it’s a
disservice to both science and reli
gion to leave unchallenged insuffi
cient arguments for the existence of
God. Severin should not consider
science too difficult and inaccessi
ble.
If Severin truly seeks to “ask
questions and challenge those claim
ing one viewpoint or another,”
besides a good science textbook, I’d
highly recommend Sagan’s “The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a
Candle in the Dark.”
Sagan writes of his encounters
with Creationists, those “... people
offended by evolution, who passion
ately prefer to be the personal handi
craft of God than to arise by blind
physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime ... tend to be less
than assiduous in exposing them
selves to the evidence. Evidence has
little to do with it: What they wish to
be true, they believe is true.”
Science, on the other hand, is not
a matter of faith and easy answers,
but of empirical data.
Claire Larson
graduate student
geosciences
Faith and fiction
I feel the need to discuss and cor
rect misstatements about “Creation
Science.” Donald Wise was invited to
speak at this university in regard to
the growing concern of the scientific
community about the agenda of indi
viduals involved in decisions about
education in the public school sys
tem.
Wise did not come to “bash and
denounce” creation science. His talk
was aimed at exposing the fallacies
that are perpetuated by the creation
ist movement in order to imitate sci
ence and trick their followers into
accepting “real scientific evidence.”
A few of Betsy Severin’s state
ments musfbe corrected. Using
Henry Morris’s book, “The
Scientific Case for Creationism,”
Severin states that creation scientists
are those who have acquired all the
standard credentials of a scientist but
who maintain that biblical creation
explains the facts of science better
than evolution.
This is a half-truth; these people
(Institute for Creation Research)
were trained as scientists, however,
they are not endorsed or accepted by
the scientific community. That is
why they have to form their own pub
lishing companies and publish in
religious texts. They also are publish
ing outside of their areas of expert
ise.
These “scientists” and their ideas
are not accepted by their peers or
published in peer review journals. It
is a question of religion to them, not
science, as they do not practice the
scientific method. They know the
results of their research before they
begin the experiment.
Severin also states that scien
tists have tons of knowledge and we
don’t, we either have to trust one side
or another is telling the truth or
devote our lives to gaining that
knowledge as they have.”
Donald Wise attempted to edu
cate and expose students such as
Severin to scientific principles.
However, her dogma prevented her
from learning from his talk and per
haps re-evaluating her own ideas.
Her column ends with the state
ment, “Ask questions and challenge
those claiming one viewpoint or
another.” I challenge Severin to
attempt to question her own pre
existing belief system before
denouncing evolution and claiming
that creationism has a scientific
basis.
Evolution is a theory based on
observable facts. Religion is a
choice.
Tawnya L. Blades
Leann Grocholski
graduate students
Department of Geosciences
