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