Opinion
1
IMANebraskan
Since 1901
Editor Sarah Baker
Opinion Page Editor Samuel McKewon
Managing Editor Bradley Davis
The other cheek
Indiana shouldn't have let
Knight run loose for so long
Robert Montgomery Knight, former Indiana
University basketball coach, was hit up with a
request late last week from his superior, IU
President Miles Brand.
Knight was in a predicament of a singular
kind In 29 years of coaching, there never existed
a more crucial moment in his career.
Three months before last week, Knight was
slapped with a “zero tolerance” policy from
Brand and IU, stemming from years and years of
embarrassing- at times criminal - incidents dur
ing his tenure as one of the most successful and
most volatile coaches in college basketball histo
ry
There was success: Three national champi
onships, first aijid foremost The Final Fours. The
number of wins, second only to North Carolina’s
Dean Smith. The nearly perfect graduation
record of IU players. There was plenty to be
proud of.
There was plenty of pain, too. Knight clashed
with every comer of society. He decked a cop in
Puerto Rico during the Pan Am Games. He threw
a chair onto the playing court against rival
Purdue. He threatened IU secretaries, athletic
directors, restaurant-goers and hunting buddies.
He offered the notion that women who are being
raped might as well “sit back and enjoy it”
Knight treated his players, many of whom
fiercely defend him, even worse. His tirades were
legendary, nonsensical, less about basketball
and more about the abstract intricacies of life.
Knight was big on life. Big on preaching the
right way to live - respect, obedience, discipline.
Big on acting out the very opposite of those val
ues.
Last March a sports cable network ran a report
that a former IU player, Neil Reed, had been
choked by Knight during practice. A video con
firmed the act
After evaluation, IU put Knight on probation
and this zero-tolerance deal, which boils down
to: Ya’ can't do what ya did for all those years.
Knight is a 59-year-old man who has no use
for direction. He ran loose with his behavior for
so long, the point of no return was long past
With a cheap no tolerance gig, IU tried to have
it both ways. Maybe Miles Brand thought he
could. More likely, he played the foolish, foolish
university politician, hoping Knight would...
well, who knows what they thought hed do?
Last week, an IU student accused Knight of
grabbing him by the arm and cursing him out for
calling Knight by only his last name. Knight said
he did scold the kid, did grab him by the arm but
did no cursing. IU assistants came to Knight’s
defense. Brand investigated anyway.
So he requested that Knight stay in town while
the investigation took place. Knight said no.
There were fish in Canada to be caught Knight
canceled trips for no one. Knight's world.
Knight’s rules. Knight’s gone.
And in the sad aftermath of what was a bril
liant basketball career, Knight is to blame for his
old-school mindset and blatant hypocrisy.
But IU, and more specifically Miles Brand,
shares the blame. It’s called enabling. It’s called
looking the other way. It’s called letting the
Pandora’s Box open without regard to anything
but success, and, in the end, losing respect for
having done it
Opinion Correction
The Association of Students of the University
of Nebraska sold the names of the UNL freshman
class to the Lincoln Journal-Star for $1,000. The
size of the list was misinterpreted in Tuesday’s
Daily Nebraskan editorial.
Editorial Board
Sarah Baker, Bradley Davis, Josh Funk, Matthew Hansen,
Samuel McKewon, Dane Stickney, Kimberly Sweet
Letters Policy
The Doty Nebraskan welcomes briefs, letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not guar
antee their publication. The Daiy 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 wi 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, NE 68588-0448. E
mat lettersOunlnfo.unl.edu.
Editorial Policy
Unsized editorials are the opinions of the Fall 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 column is solely the opinion of its author, a cartoon is
eolely the opinion of its artist The Boon! of Regents acts as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; poli
cy 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, rasponsi
b«y for the edtorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its employees.
AFT£=f? WEARING ABOUT THE FtRKToNE
RECAO, FPANK 9UM ATTEMPTS To
f»Akg A TRAPE-IN OP HIS oWW.
Hev,iwas
Vt/oNDEf^Nk"
MAYBE * f^''0
-TKAPE IN w*
5f^.|ALlEA(VlS...
...SVOU'T
WANT IQ |-\
SUFFER A / l
BWWflttT,
L
^ vi_i-s-l>__U
NealObermeyer/DN
Letters to the editor
So just the kettle's black?
Seth Felton (DN, 9/11/00) identified Dr. Laura
Schlessinger as being an Orthodox Jew and as having
“emerged from (a) hive,” advising her to “work harder
to emulate Christ” Insects emerge from hives, Mr.
Felton.
Jews are not insects. You have sought to orally
dehumanize someone who may very well have had
recent relatives similarly dehumanized, and then
exterminated - with insecticides - by die Nazis.
Assuming that Dr. Schlessinger is an Orthodox
Jew, it is most probable that she will resent your advice
to “emulate Christ” You accuse her of “indt(ing) hate
and encourag(ing) violence.” Is the concept of “chutz
pah” familiar to you, Mr. Felton?
Robert J. Tobin
Graduate Student
Geology
Simply genius
I read the opinion page when I have the time. I
think a lot of people do. Some people's opinion’s make
me laugh - really hard. In fact, one letter I read had a
history grad using logic to refute someone’s morally
objective decision - a decision that was outside the
realm of illegality.
This history grad proceeded to equate the deci
sion of premarital cohabitation with that of premedi
tated homicide. Thank you.
There was a collective laugh from most of the engi
neering students and all others who have the ability to
make a distinction between reason and feelings.
I'm looking forward to the next one, written by
some performing arts student, making references to
the application of quantum technology. I would like to
extend my appreciation to the kind soul who is going
to fuel the rest of myweekwith mirth and laughter.
Nick Renter
Senior
Biological Systems Engineering
Who an she be?
OK, guys. Who in the hell is this Petaluma Watson?
I’ve read a lot of shit in the opinion pages of your
newspaper over the past three-plus years, but never
felt inclined to write about any of it
But this definitely has to be the worst. I can’t
believe you guys pay her for this shit I mean, she won't
even put her picture in the paper near her column.
She’s got to hide behind some drawing.
I want to know what the person looks like so that
when I'm wandering around on campus, I can see
what kind of person is writing mindless bullshit like
this. My 6-year-old brother could write a better col
umn than that
What’s even worse is that you felt inclined to put a
reference to the article on the front page.
Come on guys. Give us something good to read
while listening to our boring lectures. Bring in some
one funny like Todd Munson.
JonHieb
Senior
Finance
Editor's Note: Petaluma Watson has agreed to
waive her pay from the Daily Nebraskan to avoid fill
ing out financialforms, thus protecting her identity
U.N. values muddied, weak
The United Nations
Millennium Summit was
wrapped up last Friday. From
this summit came a “declara
tion of the world's hopes for
the 21st century.”
Basically, the U.N. has
narrowed its fundamental
values to a total of six: free
dom, equality, solidarity, tol
erance, respect for nature and
Jake
Glazeski
a sense of shared responsibili
ty. Such eloquent reduction!
But ultimately this list falls apart at the seams:
Freedom - Freedom is, indeed, essential to the
survival of human civilization. It is vital that we be
able to think and to act however we please, so long as
we do not infringe upon the rights of another.
Whether it be speaking our mind or creating our
life's work, in order to reach our full potential, in order
to best enrich the society in which we live, we must be
allowed to exercise our mental faculties and to act
upon them.
Freedom, according to the U.N., is the freedom to
raise one’s children in dignity, to be free from hunger,
and to be free from the fear of violence, oppression or
injustice.
To raise one’s children in dignity? What does that
mean? Outside of poverty? To have free access to edu
cation? Such a vague delineation of a fundamental
precept! Why would the U.N. define something that is
“fundamental” as without boundaries?
Freedom from hunger? But in order not to be
hungry, one must be fed. In order to be fed, one must
produce the food. So does the freedom from hunger
imply the responsibility to produce? That if one man
does not provide for the hunger of another, he is
infringing upon the hungry man’s freedom? In other
words, can one man violate another man’s rights by
doing nothing?
How do you create an environment that is free
from fear? Is this the rule of law? Or the censorship of
fear-inspiring action and thought?
Equality - Equality follows naturally from free
dom. If an individual is denied any rights that anoth
er individual is afforded, then how can the first be said
to be free?
But the U.N. defines equality another way.
According to the U.N., equality includes the
“Opportunity to benefit from development” What is
this? A semantic game? How does one gain the oppor
tunity to benefit from something? One either benefits
from development, or one does not
The U.N. is probably addressing the phenome
non of exploited labor and corrupt economic sys
tems, whereby a few wealthy people get wealthier
without benefits to the poor that have produced the
wealth.
But this is criminal - it infringes on the rights of
the people - and thus it is an issue of freedom, not of
equality. Calling it “equality” requires the definition of
groups that are unequal, and drawing those groups
will only help to perpetuate that inequality (as we
have seen in this country with multiculturalism).
Solidarity and tolerance -Solidarity - to what
purpose? Tolerance - of what?
Solidarity for the U.N. means calling on the
world’s rich to help the poor. But solidarity is unity
produced by the community of beliefs - so does the
U.N. mean to say that all the world should share the
belief that the rich should help the poor? If we are to
be as one, does this not mean that we should think as
one, as well, and further, that we should all believe in
the ethic of the unearned?
Does this not conflict with freedom? Should we
not be free to think and to do as we deem fit, even if it
infringes on the “right” of the poor to have what they
haven’t earned?
Tolerance is the indulgence of people's beliefs or
practices that differ from one's own. As long as those
practices don’t infringe on anyone else's rights, any
individual should be able to hold whatever beliefs
and to practice whatever it is they wish. So tolerance,
like equality, flows from freedom. Allow people to be
free, and you will allow them tolerance and equality.
Respect for nature-What does it mean to respect
nature? To preserve it? To cultivate it? To mold it to our
purposes?
And what is nature? Is nature the air we city
dwellers breath or the trees we plant? Is it the pristine,
government-protected national park?
When one respects a human, one allows the
human to live freely. How do we “free” nature?
Another vague fundamental value.
A sense of shared responsibility - But responsi
bility for what? The U.N. states that we should all be
responsible for maintaining peace - a noble-sound
ing gesture. But if two parties should make war, what
sanction does anyone else have to get involved?
The issue, down to the last bullet, is between the
two parties, and “maintaining peace” inevitably
means choosing sides, which furthers conflict. This
value leads us to perpetuate war, not to remove cir
cumstances in which it exists.
The fact that the U.N. finds it necessary to refine
what it means to be “free” and to specifically protect
values which logically flow from freedom shows that
the U.N. isn't the least concerned about actual free
dom. It is more concerned in social engineering - in
indoctrinating the world first with “the way things
should be,” then finding ways to force the civiliza
tions that can to help civilizations that flounder.
What it doesn’t realize is that the very fuel of such
engineering can only be produced in die absence of
such engineering. Human creativity and the desire to
produce - these actions are compelled not by the
desire to help children in Tunisia, they are compelled
by self-interest.
By bogging the world’s creatures with such bur
dens as these six fundamental values, the U.N. is only
helping to perpetuate the very problems it is trying to
ameliorate.
And if our world leaders don't understand this,
what hope does the rest of the world have?
Regardless
of age, race
or shoe style
George walked
home from school
barefooted. He
kept a comfortable
distance between
himself and a
group of his peers
nearly half a block
ahead.
Each time they
took a step, their
Dane
Stickney
oiiiiiy uiatK Miucd
went clickety-klack, clickety-klack.
George’s bare feet made no sound.
His peers were walking to Vic's Store, a
local candy shack where all of the local kids
met after school to guzzle sugary snacks
and carbonated sodas.
George paused as he walked past the
store. It was filled with pimply-faced boys
wearing athletic jerseys and freckle-faced
girls with their hair in pigtails.
ne Daaiy wanted to join tnem. ne
burned to talk with them, to laugh, to fed
accepted. But the sign on the glass door
read: “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.”
A tiny tear came to George's eye as he
looked down at his feet They were dark
ened from dirt scuffed from the cement
“Why won't you go clickety-klack?” he
said. “It would be so much easier.”
Vic looked up from accepting quarters
from the sea of adolescence that bought
his sugar-laden products. Out the window,
he saw George standing outside looking at
his feet
The world seemed to stop for Vic at
that moment He knew the story. He had
heard about George.
Vic was at the town meeting where
Ramona Doma stood up in front of the rit
izens of Clicksville and demanded
George’s shoes be taken away.
“If he can’t walk with the right noise,
the way God intended us all to walk, then
he shouldn’t be allowed to make any noise
at all,” said Ramona. “If we allow someone
to walk around in our city making a klack
ety-click noise, then who knows what
might happen? We’d go to hell in a hand
basket, I’m quite sure.”
At the time, Vic didn’t know what to
think, but he kept quiet out of the fear of
losing his store.
But now, he wanted to open his door to
George. He wanted to abolish the “No
Shirt, No Shoes” rule.
He made his way to the door, where
George had been standing. When he
reached the door, he saw Ramona Doma
and her cohorts standing on the sidewalk,
watching his every move.
Vic opened the door and closed it
behind him. George quickly looked up at
the ruddy, pudgy old man.
“Say, son,” Vic said. “How would you
like to come in and get some candy, maybe
talk to some of the other kids?”
George’s eyes lit up. “Really?” he said.
"What about the rule? What about Ra... ”
At that moment, Ramona Doma came
walking toward Vic and George. The sharp
clickety-klack of her elegant black boots
echoed down the street She wore a black
hat, and her nose seemed to curl like the
beak of a vulture. Her skin had a ghastly
green tint to it
Excuse me, vie, she said. Tm afraid it
is illegal for you to let that little disobedient
creature in your store. We passed the
amendment that said no one can enter the
store without shoes, and since this thing is
a klackety-clicker, he can’t wear shoes, so
that’s the end of the discussion.”
Vic knew about the amendment, but
he also knew that it was being contested in
a court of law because it was too broad.
The amendment read: “Any creature
who does not walk with a clickety-klack
rhythm (the way God intended creatures
to walk) will not be recognized as a crea
ture worthy of wearing shoes and will
therefore be banned from wearing shoes
of any kind."
All of the conservative folk of
Clicksville quickly signed their names to a
petition supporting the amendment and
voted for it in November as a constitution
al amendment to the Clicksville
Constitution.
Ironically, the petition was interpreted
to forbid the shoeing of horses, since they
walk with a clippity-clop, clippity-clop
rhythm. So one of the local farmers who
had signed the petition brought a court
case against Clicksville to allow his horse to
beshoed.
“That court case is still pending,” Vic
said to Ramona Doma. “I can let George in
my store if I want” He put his arm around
George and guided him into the store.
Ramona Doma stood with her hands
on her hips and glared at the pair. “This
isn't Vermont, Vic,” she said. “You can’t just
slap God in the face by befriending klack
ety-clickers."
Vic stopped short, turned and walked
up to Ramona Doma. “If you heeded God’s
word, you would love everyone, regardless
of the rhythm of their walk,” he said. “He
wouldn’t be mad at me for befriending
anyone and fighting for equality.”
With that the old man pushed a shaft
of gray hair away from his forehead and
walked toward the door of the store where
George was standing.
“C’mon, George,” he said, as he
grabbed the sign that read “No Shirt, No
Shoes, No Service” and threw it in the
trash.