Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (April 20, 2000)
Opinion Blame killers, not schools No measures can stop those bent on violence Pointing fingers Blame killers, not schools for violence A year ago, two teens walked into Columbine High 1 School and killed 12 students, a teacher and themselves. Fingers were pointed in every direction. Their parents, police and teachers were blamed for missing clues. Violent video games, movies and TV shows have been blamed. And the school was blamed for allowing it to happen, leading to a year of talk about school safety. Some have proposed metal detectors, locking all entrances to the school and strengthened surveillance equipment. Tt nn lhe truth 1S» no physical barner L WUS Url would have stopped the Columbine event that killers A Lincoln High administrator could said the same thing: No precaution _ _ can stop someone as motivated as dejine U Klebold or Harris were. And, as this year has shown with generanon, additional in school shootings, the nrtd /Vc Columbine tragedy was not an isolat UnU US ed incident. sheer But was an event that could define a generation, and its sheer vio violence lence must not be forgotten. But it also must not be overblown. must not be It’s a terrible spectacle without an r answer, but something similar will JOrgO lien. happen again — maybe even today. School officials are not being lax. They are brainstorming ways to keep America’s children safe. In cities across America, schools employ security guards, maintain a regular police presence and use tactics such as locker searches to keep their hallways safe. Administrators and teachers have added counseling to their job duties as they try to identify students who might be disenfranchised and in need of help. In Lincoln, as in many cities, the police department has assigned officers to patrol the high schools to fulfill a combined education and enforcement mission. They are all trying to avert another tragedy. But it’s a hard job, especially with teens like Klebold and Harris roaming the hallways. The finger should not be pointed at the schools; it should be pointed at Klebold and Harris. 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 sfudent employees. The Daily Nebraskan strives to print fair and accurate coverage; any corrections or clarifications will be printed on page three. Obermeyer’s VIEW /the W£fiTH0t I5 v. So BmVWLt \/' Y0AH, e«T \ 7 -THE UimHSR/XTS \ 1 vii\m,/tL-rh£ f^5TSh “VcoM^ oucT^^y r. Letters to the EDITOR Lost in the Pink Triangle I am writing in response to the DN Issues column written by Samuel Mckewon (DN Wednesday). The first reason I am writing is to thank him and the DN for taking notice of the action taken by ASUN on these issues and bringing them to the public forum. I disagree with McKewon’s interpretation of the posting of the pink triangle in the ASUN office and the passing of the Allies Organization legislation pre sented by President Schafer. By my reading of the bill and interpretation of the pink triangle symbol, this action does by no means bind ASUN or its officers to voting any particular way on “pro-gay legis lation.” The symbolism of the pink trian gle - by my interpretation and by reading the placard on which the symbol is displayed - simply means that all people, including queers, can feel safe from verbal or physical abuse or harassment or discrimina tion upon entering the offices of ASUN. Further, it asserts ASUN will not support any position that advocates verbal or physical harassment or dis crimination of any kind on the basis of sexual orientation or any other quality of a person listed in its non discrimination policy. I see no correlation between the display of the pink triangle and the way in which senators must vote on any issues, including “pro-gay legis lation.” The only issues on which it would bind senators’ positions would be those dealing with physical and verbal harassment and discrimina tion. The notion that ASUN, by virtue of its passing the Allies Organization legislation and displaying the pink triangle, is engaging in “ideological and lifestyle discrimination” is ludi crous. I realize that perception is more important than fact. But I seri ously doubt that anyone who does not agree with the posting of the pink tri angle will be any less likely to come into the ASUN office or get involved in it. But let’s assume that is the case for the moment. If that is the case, this action is taking one small step toward turning the tables a bit. White, Christian heterosexuals are never forced to consider their race, religion or sexual orientation for fear of resid ual effects from those characteristics. However, non-whites, non Christians and homosexuals are forced to consider their non-main stream qualities every single day because society has set up its institu tions to only truly value, appreciate and support people possessing quali ties which they do not exude (the qualities of being white, Christian or heterosexual). If white, Christian heterosexuals do feel uncomfortable walking into the ASUN office with the pink trian gle displayed, it is merely giving those students a tiny glimpse of what it is like to be of a race, religion or sexual orientation that is underrepre sented or oppressed on our campus. Andy Schuerman senior marketing education Issues on the issues I feel the need to clarify some points in yesterday’s DN Issues. First, Mr. McKewon makes it sound like the gay community is the only group supporting gay rights at UNL. This is not the case. The safe space bill passed last year was the result of a letter the stu dent organization Allies Against Heterosexism and Homophobia sent to many student organizations, including ASUN. It is Allies’ purpose to work among the mainstream het erosexual community to combat atti tudes and actions of heterosexism and homophobia. Even I, as a straight student, can feel uncomfortable when being vocal about these issues. As a co-president of the organization, I know that there are many people on this campus who have to be constantly uncomfortable on a level I doubt that I can appreci ate. Secondly, the current safe space legislation did not make the ASUN office a Safe Space. You don’t create Safe Spaces by passing legislation. Individual attitudes create Safe Spaces. What the legislation did was to publicly affirm that ASUN is a Safe Space. Given that ASUN is a Safe Space, any future legislation advancing issues of gay rights will be able to stand on its own, and Mr. McKewon’s fear of the pink triangle being used as “leverage” that “guarantees the slant ed agenda” will not be realized. Finally, I am confused by Mr. Hejkal’s argument. The only way that a gay or lesbian employee of the uni versity can enjoy the same benefits that a straight employee does is to marry someone of the opposite sex, someone they don’t love. Straight employees have the opportunity to marry someone they love and enjoy these benefits. This does not seem like equal treatment to me. A gay man marrying a woman to get benefits from the university cer tainly seems like more a threat to the sanctity of marriage than same-sex marriage. Mr. Hejkal actually seems to promote same-sex marriage toward the end of his argument, but let’s focus on issues that the universi ty has control over, like domestic partner benefits. Nicholas L. Wolff senior mechanical engineering co-president, Allies Against Heterosexism and Homophobia PS. Write Back Send letters to: Daily Nebraskan, 20 Nebraska Union, 1400 aR” St., Lincoln, NE 68588, or fax to (402) 472-1761, or e-mail letters@unl.edu. Letters must be signed and include a phone number for Verification.