Oregon emerald., March 14, 1916, Page Three, Image 3

SHALL SOPHOMORES BE REPRESENTED ON COUNCIL?
Two Communications Say “No’’ an | One "Yes.”
To the Editor of the Emerald:—To-'
morrow the much mooted question of
sophomgre representation on the student
council will be decided.
Its advocates have with consisteifcy
sincerity plead for it on the ground of
principle. Likewise on the grounds of
principle we are opposed to the meas
ure.
Briefly, the case of the advocates of
sophomore representation is as fol
lows: The underdnssmen are taxed.
They nre not represented. Therefore,
it is “taxation without representation'’
(which is tryanny),land the emotional as
sociations of that phrase are dragged in
to the argument. |The final conclusion
is drawn that the pnderclassmen should
have at least one representative on the
council in the person of one sopho- ■
more, elected by the entire student body.
We admit that the underclassmen are
taxed, and if they! are not represented
that they should be; but we do not ad
mit that they are mot represented.
In view of the fact that the student
body constitutes a government, let us
examine the principles of representation
in government. We find that in the
United States there are three principles
of representation: First, according to
population; second, equal, according to
states; and, third, at large for a certain
unit polity. Sophomore representation
cannot be upheld under the first prin
ciple, since only one representative is
asked for over half the student body.
Neither can it be justified under the sec
ond principle, since no equality will be
established between the classes which
are analogous to the states. And finally,
it cannot be maintained under the third
principle, since under it sophomores
have just as much representation as any
of the classes. The student body is here
like a city Which elects its councilors at
large. Each councilor represents the en
tire city, and not his locality. Likewise,
the members of the student council are
elected at large, and since each member
is elected by the student body, he repre
sents that body; representing the soph
omores as well as the other classes. AVe
see then that the Sophomores are repre
sented. The ancient principle upon which
the contentions of the advocates rests is
satisfied now; then their case is with
out support in principle.
To summarize t'he argument: It is
contended that the sophomores should be
represented on the student council as a
matter of principle. The principle given
is taxation wutlhout representation.
However, we find | that the sophomores
ore now represented, since the members
of the council are elected at large by
the whole student body; as much by the
underclassmen as by the upperclassmen.
The only principle given in support of
the amendment before you tomorrow
does not stand the test. For that rea
son, we oppose sophomore representa
tion.
But there is a further argument
against Sophomore representation which
arises out of the history of the present
tiiseussion. As neaf as we can learn, the
amendment was proposed to solve a
problem in the Council. There was too
much cutting of meetings and lack of
interest, and the Council began to dis
cuss the reasons for this condition and
to seek a remedy. Two suggestions came
forward, one was no reduce organizations
if possible, and the other was Sopho
more representation. The question aris
es, will the latter better the situation?
We believe that it will not. If the men
who have been here for two and there
years have not a sufficient interest in
Student Body affairs to attend meetings
of the Council regularly and take an ac
tive part how can we expect the men
who have been here but one year .to do
-so? If the students have failed to select
upperclassmen who will take a proper
interest in the Council have we any
reason to believe that they wiH select a
Sophomore who will? Further than this,
will a Sophomore1 help the attendance
thi
problem of the CounoiJJ? He may
own presence to be sure; but can
pect that he will attend more
others because he is au underclasb
Can we expect that he will act
magnet to draw the nbsent uppe
men into the Council halls? If h
not increase the interest in the
or the attendanc»«on the meetings
Council he is not the nnswer
problem that he has been brought
ward to solve.
In conclusion, we are opposed
amendment which will be voted up
morrow because the principle
which its represented; and becfl
will not help solve the problem
designed to remedy.
CLOYD O. DAWS
j.v his
?e ex
n the
man?
as a
class
i can
work,
of the
i o the
for
to the
on to
npon
a|nse it
t was
To the Editor of the Emerald:--After
reading your editorial entitled “Hawk
ish Sentimentality,” appearing in Satur
day’s Emerald, I am convinced that
when a person ceases to argue o 1 the
merits of a question he invariably re
sorts to ridicule.
In order to make the case of tl
ponents of sophomore representati
the student council appear ridicule i
asked us , since we supported th
ocratic principle of representati|o
the council, why we didn’t carry
guments to the full extent and s
underclassmen should have repn
tion in exact proportion to their n
When you argue that way, you art
ingjthe issue. We have never co
that the underclassmen should
represented. eW realize as well
one that extremes of any kind at
gerous. We are adopting the
course which will at the same tin i
underclassmen on opportunity
press their opinions through a
representative and which will a
yield to inexpediency and ineffich
In the second place you accused
arguing in such a way as to ap
the emotions and not the reason
student electorate. You intimate
persons who would take stock in
guments were “ignoramuses.” I
exactly certain what you mean -by
noramus, but if believing in the
incuts put forth by the support
sophomore representation places
in that category, then I, as au
ON.
e pro
iou on
is, you
dem
m on
ur nr
that
senta
imber.
dodg
-Htended
so
s any
dan
middle
give
ex
proper
not
ncy.
us of
Jieal to
of the
that
>ur ar
irn not
an ig
argu
s of
them
ardent
f y
I o
Iso
supporter, plead guilty to tue cnai ge and
admit that I am an IGNORAMUS-—spell
ed in capital letters. By the same pro
cess, Benjamin Franklin, Thom! s Jef
ferson, George Washington, Airaham
Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt aiu other
true democrats who believe in the equal
ity of opportunity are also iguon muses.
Mr. Avison, writing against sop
representation, said that undercla
representation is excusable becaus
tl
i s
is an analogy existing in the fedei
ernment—the age-limit of United
senators—which goes to show
derclass non-representation
against the spirit of the Amerie
ernment and ideals. In the firs
the analogy does not apply to lo<
dition. If he had compared the
government to the government
state of Oregon he would have
correct analogy. In Oregon ther|e
age limit for state senator or rep
fives and the people -of the sta|t
the freshmen and the sopohomor
upon the constitutional amendmei
itiative and referendum measures
out any regard to age—except
age. Now, of course, if the op
argues that the sophomores anc
men should be disenfranchised, tl
entirely different question. Perp
under no circumstances would
myself a party either directly
rectly to such a principle in studs
ernment. Yet that is exactly
opponents of sophomore repres
are doing. Think -this over.
In the second place, the analogic
a good one because (and I am not
ing a personal conclusion, but
w i
to more
ss non
e there
al gov
States
nt un
not
n gov
place,
al con
student
>f the
had a
is no
u|esenta
;e, like
■s, vote
ts, in
with
voting
losition
fresh
lat’s an
;onally,
make
indi
nt gov
at the
i|ntation
or
is not
draw
simply
stating a long-recognized fact) that the
constitution of the United States has
many inconsistencies. Presidents are
elected indirectly by the people, and wo
men are denied the right of suffrage,
I think that the greatest argument in
favor of sophomore representation is
the fact—made much of by the op
ponents of the measure—that only four
of the thirteen members of the student
council favor the proposition. That’s
exactly what we have been arguing for
all the time: UPPERCLASSMEN DO
NOT APPRECIATE THE INTERESTS
OF THE UNDERCLASSES, and there
fore they should have at least one repre
sentative. I am glad to know for the
sake of principle that there are four
members who do appreciate the con
dition of the underclasses.
Mr. Avison said that a majority of the
underclassmen disfavored the plan. I
do not hesitate to say that is clear mis
representation of fact, because I have
taken the trouble to investigate its truth
and I find that, with one exception thus
far, underclassmen are in favor of the
proposition. I don’t know what ac
tuated such a statement, except that he
hoped he might influence underclassmen
to believe in a proposition so directly
opposed toy their interests.
I am working for this proposition as
a matter of principle. I don’t maintain
an infallibility of judgment. All I ask
for is that the students face the issue
fairly and squarely, without external in
fluence, and judge the question on its
merits. The underclasses can secure the
passage of this amendment if they want
it. If it fails, it will be because I and
other supporters have made a mistake in
believing that the underclasses want
representation or else that they have
been bull-dosed into disbelieving in a
proposition which so vitally affects their
best interests.
Finally, lot me re-state our contention:
If 250 upperclassmen have thirteen rep*
resentatives on the student council,
surely 560 underclassmen should have
one representati1^. Is that asking too
much?
Students of the University, I ask that
you use your 'best judgment in this mat
ter—it’s a question of principle.
LAMAR TOOZE.
Avowedly, every once in a while the
'Emerald must resort to ridicule to fight
the effect of non-annlogous epithets that
are hurled with the obvious intent to
appeal to the emtions rather than to the
reason. Certain phrases like “Taxation
without representation,” and “right al
ways wins”are often used to incite an
emotional response of favor based on
mawkish sentimentality. In this case the
epithets had no analogous connection
with the mooted question. In response to
such epithets that are guaranteed to cre
ate certain emotional, non-rational
glows of assent in the mind ■which re
ceives them, we have but one weapon,
ridicule.
Avowedly, the Emerald deliberately
resorted to ridicule in answering the
first communication of the writer, whose
second letter appears in today’s col
umns. Evidently ridicule worked ef
fectively, for we note that the two
emotional-exciting Epithets do not ap
pear in the latter letter. Instead of
still adhering to the doctrine, that does
not apply on this case, of taxation
without representation, the writer is
willing to compromise with the principle,
and propose partial representation. In
stead of still maintaining that right al
ways wins, the writer seems suddenly to
have lost faith in that shibboleth, and
says the underclasses (in virtue of their
superior might in numbers) can secure
student council membership if they want
it.
But, contrary to the writer’s miscon
ception, the Emerald did not say that the
opposition’s argument would appeal only
to ignoramuses—far be it from us to say
! that. )Vhat we stated in plain, unmistak
! able terms was that underclassmen
i will cast aside all of these epithets that
might [have an emotional appeal to ig
! norarahses, but never to reasoning men
; and wdmen.”
And what is more, the Emerald never
j did aim to slam real arguments with rid
j icule; what it did do—-and successfully,
; we thipk. from the appearance of the
' above communication—was to fight
j mawkish sentimentality with ridicule.—
Ed.
To th« Editor:—When the student
council recently allowed the resolution
i to slip through favoring a sophomore
! members of the student council it gave
j an impetus to a movement that not even
; the later retraction can stop. The sub
■ mission of the amendment for student
; body approval was a master stroke for
j the “(•mancipation" of the “oppressed
■ underclassmen,” for the underclassmen !
! have by far the majority of votes and
; it is their say now as to “aye” or “nay.”
I And the action of the council in first
| favoring and then disfavoring the nmend
; ment allows for argument on either side
[ as to the fallacy or non-fallacy of the
| amendment. Therefore it is up to tho
students, underclassmen and upperclass
men alike, to look at the question from
the cofnmon sense point of view and vote
accordingly.
In the first place the student council
should be a body of weight in order that
the student body of the University may
have /sound government. Sound govern
ment is founded on sound judgment, and
sound judgment in the judicial and ex
ecutive administration of the affairs of
the student body only comes from ac
quired', absorbed and intimate knowledge
as the result of residence on the campus
for at least two years. And will the un
derclassmen vote “aye” for the mere
purpose of aggrandizement? For they
can not so vote and seriously say they
have the required sound judgment neces
sary for the administration of all affairs
pertaihing to the student body. Nor does
that say the sophomore is lacking in
acumen; relatively speaking he may hnve
more than nn upperclassman ns far as
his experience goes.
And if the sophomore is not allowed
on the council that is not taxation with
out representation, but taxation for ulti
mate representation; taxation to whet
his interest, to engage him in student ac
tivities and to make him prove his worth
ere he is allowed to help steer the exe
cutive and judicial ship of the student
body.'And if necessary the state and
national government can be paralleled
to emphasize the point. Legislators are
not chosen simply because they pay
taxes; they are chosen from point of
age, •t'xperionoe and merit.
And why. if residence is not consider
ed a necessary essential to the question,
must an alien have required of him cer
tain residence rules before his natural
ization? And why must a legal voter of
one county in moving to another county
reside here for a prescribed period be
fore he can vote on county issues?
No matter how, the result is that the
amendment is up to be voted on. As it
now is the situation is completely in the
hands of the underclassmen. Now is In
volved in them a serious trust. If they
will enhance their power for mere ag
grandizement, regardless of the future
welfare of the student body and of col
lege traditions, the amendment will pass.
Put will the amendment pnss?
Suppose the students at the Univer
sity are in majority underclassmen, as
they are, and the sophomores are given
recognition on the council, what propor
tion do the sophomores hold to the un
derclassmen? The sophomores are in a
minority by at least a third. Given repre
sentation. then the freshmen class alone
remains unrepresented. It is but a step,
once the sophomore amendment passes,
to enhance the power of the freshmen,
by also giving them representation. Put
the students want fairness. If then num
bers and numbers alone are to be taken
as the basis for representation it is only
justice to give the freshmen a council
representative. That is logical fairness
but the lack of soundness in such a prin
ciple can readily be seen.
HAROLD IIAMKTREET.
Strin-BIooh
** Monroe ”1 .
All this week we,are holding our
Second
Anniversary
Celebration
This is our Birthday-Party week; an oc
casion of commemorating the two years of
successful business dealings in Eugene.
We invite every person to join us in this
event. In order to fittingly celebrate, we
are offering special values in new Spring
clothing and dress needs. These offerings
are so interesting—so important—that,
really, no one can afford to overlook them.
The following are only a few:
New Hats
$3.00
The nattiest'soft and stiff
hats of the hour, showing
every classy shape and pat
tern in every popular color
for Spring, j^t $3.00
New Shirts
$1.50
Beautiful Dr;ess Shirts in
plain colors and new stripes
and other patterns; soft or
iaundered cuffs, plain or
fancy bosoms, $1.50.
Also showing unexcelled
Values in ties, caps, gloves,
hose, underwear and other
toggery; newest styles, low
est prices. 1
Anniversary
Special in
New Suits
$25.00
A' large Anniversary
group of men’s and
young men's finest
Spring Suits; Hart
Schaffner and Marx and
Stein-Bloch garments, in
every distinctive and ex
clusive fashion; plain
blue serges and all new
est novelties at the spec
ial price, only $25. See
them. Other suits $15 to
$35.00.
Wade Bros:
“Things Men and Boys Wear”
-THE BEST AMERICAN MAKE/
....
an* ‘Dovtca.ster
ARROW
COLLAR
2 for 25c
Clnett, Peabody a: Co., Inc., Makera
Song Hits
„ From
“THE ONLY GIRL”
Now on Sale
THE MUSIC SHOP I
65 E. 9th St. Phone 231
M. A. Roach, Mgr.
PHONE 65
I
nee
Fellows
She
Wants
to Go
50c Couple-iAuspices To-Ko-Lo—50c Couple