R&ui&ed GanAtUutian GcuiA&i PnxdeAti Four Coeds: New Revision Dear Miss Mon tag: In your editorials concerning the revised ASUO constitution you have appealed to the students to consider carefully this reform of their student government and have asked for suggestions for improv ing the present form of govern ment on the campus. We believe that the students who have really read the constitution as compared to the old one are not satisfied with the present re vision. The revision is as full of holes as a hot air register; in fact, it somewhat resembles a sieve. Under all the legalistic language is the obvious fact that this new gov ernment gives the students no more hold on their own affairs than be fore. The congress is merely a set up whereby the students can quib ble over minor points; there is a very neat little clause giving con trol over any issue which the fac ulty deems important enough for long-haired consideration to the president of the University. By this method the administra tion still holds us in the palms of their venerable work-worn and calloused hands. We don’t want to fight the administration because we do after all want to stay in school, but we believe that the student should insist on gaining control of their own government. Otherwise the ASUO government is only a ruse; the faculty bigwigs are still the bosses and the ASUO officers are only their wardheelers. We suspect that those clauses were included in the constitution at the suggestion of the bosses. We believe that it is your duty as Emerald editor to let the ad ministration know of the attitudes of the students on this vital mat ter. We believe that the Emerald, as spokesman for the students and our only champion, should editori ally oppose the present revision of the constitution, and insist that a new constitution eliminating ad ministration coercion should be written by the committee. Hoping that you will regard this BOB CALKINS: Re-Draft Constitution Dear Editor: It would seem that the labor and time expended on the framing of a new ASUO constitution would resolve itself into definite benefits for the students. In reference to this, the designers of the constitu tion of the student congress have failed in one vital respect. The objectives of the new consti tution are commendable, but, it is evident that something, or some one, stood between these objectives and their fulfillment. * Manage Own Affairs? Mr. Craig states that one of the objectives of the new constitution is to give the students an oppor tunity to manage their own af fairs. At wide variance with this policy is the headline on the Em erald story: “New Student Govern ment Plans Comply With Admin istration Requests.” The adminis tration requests that: “The presi dent of the University of Oregon shall be responsible for and shall administer all extra-curricular ac tivities.” (Article II, Section II). It is understood that the presi dent is responsible for all depart ments of the University, and this fact, adequately stated in higher authorities than the ASUO con stitution, need not be repeated. Student Administration As to the administration of ex tra-curricular activities of the As sociated Students, this should be left entirely to the students, if the objectives of the committee are to be realized. I believe that the constitution as proposed is not in the best inter ests of student government, and that it should be re-drafted on the premise that the duty of the ad ministration is to advise, not dom inate, the Associated Students. Sincerely, Bob Calkins letter as concrete evidence of the students’ concern with their gov ernment and the welfare of the cdmpus, we remain, Sincerely yours, Maryellen Wright Roberta Scott Helen McFetridge Kathleen King • • • Student 2) em<M,‘itA.atio+t A single section of the proposed new ASUO constitution has drawn the fire of a number of Oreogn students in letters to the Iunerald. The controversy centers on tliis .paragraph ■which appears in the present student bodv constitution but which was omitted from the first draft of the revised constitu tion : "'l'he president of the University of Oregon shall be responsible for and shall administer all extra-curricular activities.” l'he vagueness and all-inclusive wording of this paragraph makes it an obvious target for student criticism. It leaves the impression that no’frcedom of action is given the student gov ernment and that no decisions can be made by an ASUO presi dent, council, or congress, without the express approval of the president of “the Universitv. l'he other main point of contention is found in Article VI, Section I, of the amendments. It states that the control of "all affairs and interests of the Associated Students of the Uni versity of Oregon, except those delegated by the president of the l Diversity to other sources, shall be vested solely in the University congress . . 'Phis paragraph seems meaningless when no outline of the •powers delegated by the I niversity president toother sources is included. 1 he writers ot the letters have a reasonable basis for their statements. \\ hat is needed now is a more clear-cut definition of exactly what they desire in the way of revision, 'l'he arquseu students must make their constructive criticisms more evident. 1 wenty-six letters, some of them signed by front four to 80 students, have been received. The interest in student govern ment and more participation in student affairs is proved in the letters. Together, and with other students, they must work out a plan for action. Fred Samaih: No Referendum The letters printed on this page were selected from- 26 received by the Emerald yes terday. They are representa tive of the feelings expressed in the other letters, which were signed by individual students, and which cannot be printed in this issue because of lack of space. Dear Miss Montag: I am taking this opportunity to express my opinions regarding the proposed constitution for the As sociated Students of the University of Oregon in both of its forms as have appeared in your publication. In my opinion the previous form was much to he preferred to the latter form. I think it was much superior irt both context and or ganization. In the last text much of the material that rightfully be longs to the constitution has been transferred to the by-laws, chang es to which, apparently, have not been provided for. In fact, I see no need or logical reason for by-laws. It is my con firmed belief that the only sec ondary law we should have in this organization are those created by the legislative group itself. Little Voice I felt that the greatest weak ness in the original proposal was the lack of student voice in the whole organization, due primarily to the lack of control over the elective officers and legislators in the original plans. Where were those primary guardians of the rights of the populace, initiative, referendum and recall. I could not find them in the text. I had supposed that the purpose of student government was to en able its constituents to gain first hand knowledge and experience in self government. Apparently I was wrong, for in spite of the fact that many of the students are eligible to cast their ballots on local and national issues, this revised con stitution places the entire mem bership under the paternal thumb of a rank outsider. .xu\ ice anu c mmsei Article II, Section II, reads, “The president of the University of Ore gon shall be responsible for and administer all extra-curricular ac tivities.” If that portion in print does not remove all chance of self government I do not know how it may be done. In this point I do not mean to be impertinent. I fully realize that youth is tempestuous and eager to try its wings. I highly value sound counsel and advice. Nevertheless I feel that this ad vice should be considered only as advice and sage counsel. There are many other points upon which I failed to concur with the constitution committee. I wish that I could ask them to justify their stands on such questions as: preferential voting, lack of ex pressed class standing for elec tions, absence of public voice in appointment of the judiciary com mittee, clarification of standing committees. No Alterations In my opinion this new constitu tion is merely a reiterance of the old constitution without one major alteration. As a device to delude the uninquiring mind, it establish es a student congress to replace the executive council. Perhaps it will add to the general confusion about student affairs, but little more. I plead that if we are going to have a new constitution, let us have one that will put the student government and "all extra-curricu BYRON MAYO: Clause Nullifies Purpose To the Editor: The drafting committee of the new ASU© constitution has done a good job! On the surface, this document is a model form for an active student government. How ever, in the recently proposed ad ditions to the constitution there is a clause which is going to nullify the whole idea of University stu dents finally taking an active in terest in managing their own af fairs. According to the committee, “Students have been criticized for a seeming lack of ability to man age their own ^ffaifls and activi ties, while in reality the present governmental form gives them no opportunity to - do so. If, by the time the student reaches college age, he is given no chance to prove his competence in the practice of democratic processes, he will be of doubtful political use to his community, state, or nation when he leaves school. Development of the ability to assume an active part of college education as the regular curricular subjects.” This has been proven true and the original idea of drafting a new ASUO constitution was to make it possible for University men and women to actually con trol their own activities. Then— what do we find ? In Article II, Section II of the purported constitution, the presi dent of the University of Oregon is given the authority to adminis ter all extra-curricular activities. In other words, it is written in our proposed student constitution that the president of the University is empowered to nullify any action under this association. In reality, the University presi dent has actual control over stu dent affairs, anyway. Why add such a written section to a docu ment that is supposed to be a model for self-government ? Isn’t it about time that the University of Oregon student-body had an ASUO constitution that proposed a student government only—even if it is to be in name only? Byron W. Mayo To the Editor: It is rumored that the student congress committee, although def initely in favor of an all-student congress, because of pressure brought to bear on them, has been forced to allow the faculty to play the major role. If this is the situ ation, why the camouflage? Jim Ellison la-r activities” where they rightful ly belong, into the hands of the students of the University of Ore gon. Respectfully, Fred Samain Four Students: Citizenship Training What is this thing called student government? We are inclined to think that it indoctrinates the prin ciple of government by the students and for the students. We cannot be too greatly criticized for this belief and yet we are not allowed the opportunity to fulfill our ideal. We think that it is finally being granted to us yet from present evidence our hopes become rapidly snatched from our hands. Is it that the administration fears that the students will gain too much pow<jr ? Primarily, a state university, or any college, exists for the students and should offer unlimited opportunities to gain practical experience in the problems that will face us in the years to come. Let us take a'S3& ond look at Article II, Section II, a revision in tl^e proposed ASUO constitution as requested by the administration. Are we to be tied to ‘‘mother’s apron strings” and tfien cut loose abruptly and thrown into the “Hard Cruel World” or can’t we be a thinking and acting group, gaining essential knowledge and given the chance to apply it? Betty Carlson Marge Cowlin Barbara Pearson Ann Winkler GIL ROBERTS My dear Miss Montag, I do not know what the general feeling around the campus is in regal'd to the new constitution, but I for one feel that it is too mv^ch. ^ like the old one. It still assumes that the presi dent of the University is a presid ing officer of the ASUO, and leaves altogether too much auth ority in his hands. It is not in tune with the stated objects. I cannot feel that the duty of the student body is to assist the officials of the administration, but rather vice versa. I feel that the students of the committee did not break free from the traditions of the old constitu tion. Yours truly, Gil Robprts. ADVERTISING STAFF Day Manager: D. L. Persinger Layout: Earl “Bing” Croghan Kit W’ilhelm Solicitors: Earl “Bing” Croghan Virginia Parr Mary Jean Reeves Office Staff: Beryl Howard, Office Mgr. Arlene O’Rourke Oregon if Emerald LOUISE MONTAG Editor annamae winship Business Manager MARGUERITE WITTWER Managing Editor BILL SETSER Advertising Manager JEANNE SIMMONDS News Editor MARILYN SAGE, WINIFRED ROMTVEDT Associate Editors Leonard Turnbull, Fred Beckwith Co-Sports Editors MARYAN HOWARD Assistant Managing Editor MARYANN THIELEN Assistant News Editor BERNARD ENGEL Chief Copy Editor BI TED BUSH Chief Night Editor ANITA YOUNG Women’s Page Editor JACK CRAIG World News Editor ’TTY BENNETT CRAMER Music Editor ■tentorial Board Mary Margaret Ellsworth, Jack Craig, Ed Allen, Beverly Ayer final exam periods^y ttie Associated^tud^ta*^!*^* S“”da?8i. Monday». and holiday* and Entered as seconiclass