Letter to Miss Holmes
Dear Anita,
It’s yours, Anita—the next 140 issues of the Emerald. You
can have it, along with the backaches, headaches, heartaches,
and laughs.
You’ve got yourself some job. If you haven’t got printers
ink in your blood now, you soon will have literally. Because
there will be nights when you set your own headlines by hand
and cut your finger on a lead.
This is the time of the year when most editors wax sentimen
tal ; about how if they had to do it all over again they’d do such
and such. Well, if we had to do it all over again we’d shoot
ourselves first. (Or probably not first, someone would beat us
to it.)
But don’t get us wrong, Anita. The job of Emerald Editor is
really wonderful. The experience you get will be grand- You’ll
learn who your friends are; and who aren’t your friends. Some
one will be all smiles when you write an edit they like; and
when you just hint the next morning at something with which
they disagree they’ll call you immature, irrational, emotional,
and rabble-rouser. If it’s like this year, you’ll probably be called
some things that can’t be printed in a newspaper.
But, we know that the Emerald will be good next year. We
know the job you do will be fine.
You’ll try to be fair, we know. We also know that students
will question your motives.
We’ve tried this year to be fair. We’ve written what we
thought was best and right for the University. And we’ve been
criticized because of the drivel we ve printed, because of the
attitude we’ve taken, because of our opinions.
We’ve tried to be well-informed on a subject before we ve
tackled it. Sometimes it’s been difficult; and sometimes we
didn’t know all that we’d like to know. We haven’t always been
tactful and diplomatic and soft-spoken. Neither have we al
ways stated opinions that have been backed up by the students.
For these reasons the editor has been accused of being a mouth
piece for the administration, and a little boy with too big a
mouth. And after the razzing the editor kept on being untact
ful and undiplomatic—though trying to learn diplomacy.
But it is awfully hard sometimes to soften what you have to
say. And sometimes it isn’t wise to soften it.
About that “pressure from the administration,’ Anita: You 11
find, as we did, that there is none. No one will believe you when
you tell them that the administration exerts no pressure, but
it is true. Sometimes there is sharp criticism from faculty or
administrators; but it isn’t nearly as sharp as that criticism
you’ll get from the students.
You’ll go down to breakfast some morning and have some
one yell about a typo; you’ll walk to your 8 o clock and some
Joe will point out that his name was missing from a list of can
didates ; in your 9 o’clock the professor will make some funny
jibe about the Emerald that you heard in your 8 o’clock; every
one else will laugh, but you’ll just smile politely and wonder if
you'll get home before midnight that night.
And there will be Sundays when you come to the Shack at
2 :30 to find the place locked up. Around about 3 one more old
faithful will show up, and by 4 there will be four more stand
bys ready to put out the Monday edition. There will be nights
everyone else is at the concert, spring afternoons when the rest
of the staff takes off for the beach, winter afternoons when you
should be holding staff meetings in the infirmary—only no one
from the Emerald can find time to go over there.
And there’s the advertising staff—they either won’t have
enough ads, or they'll have too many. And by the end of spring
term you’re likely to get tired of reading "Emerald ads bring
results.
You can look forward to the big issues and the stuffing par
ties ; the last issue and the whistles; and all spring term you 11
look forward to the SDX edition—for you being a Theta Sig,
Anita, can take that day off.
Once in a while you’ll drop by the library, grab an arm-load
of books, and on your way out curse the studyhounds who have
so much free-time; and you’ll wonder, why shouldn’t they all
make four points?
Some nights you’ll try to study at the Shack, but you can’t
because there is always something big breaking, or some work
to do.
And at the end of the year you’ll look back and see what
you’ve accomplished. And maybe you’ll be discouraged because
there was so much you didn’t do, and maybe you too will be
sentimental and start thinking about what you could do if you
had it to do all over again.
Though it is tough to measure things up, maybe you’ll feel
that you did some little good. We think we did. Though there
are many who think more harm was done than good.
Take good care of the Emerald, Anita. It means an awful
lot to many of us, and we don’t want to see it hurt. Say what
you have to say; we know we can trust you to know what
you’re talking about.
Don, Anne, and Tom
22 TNE Names Listed
The following students were connected with TNE
in some manner during their college careers. Not
all are initiated members, but all attended one or
more meetings of the group. Some have dropped
their active connection with the group.
All these students have been or will be placed
on probation by the University for the remainder
of their college career.
The names were obtained from a reliable source
—reliable to the complete satisfaction of the
Emerald editorial staff. It is, perhaps, worthwhile
to add that no University student or administrative
person, officially or unofficially connected with the
TNE investigation, contributed in any manner to
the securing of the list.
The Emerald obtained this information after
three days of search, in which proof that these
students were connected with TNE and were placed
on probation by the University was sought.
This proof was finally obtained late last night.
This list is printed with no malice; the Emerald
merely feels that the student body has the right
to know these names.
Many innocent students have been implicated
with TNE by rumor; 13 students were accused of
membership by a well-circulated mimeographed let
ter. TNE thrives on secrecy; secrecy concerning the
investigation will merely lead to a furtherance of
the methods of TNE.
If TNE is to be exterminated on the Oregon
campus, students must become aware of the dan
gers of the organization and the dangers of belong
ing to such an organization.
Some of the students listed have turned their
backs on TNE; it is unfortunate that they are. listed
with others who were active supporters of the
group. These students who have turned away from
the secret group have shown, or will show, by their
actions that they no longer believe in the principles
of such an organization. To these students, we re
gret we must print their names. We only hope that
they have already, or can in the future, convince the
students of their good faith in turning away from
TNE.
It is with regret that we print this list; but it is
printed with the firm belief that by doing so, re-or
ganization of TNE or any group similar to it will be
discouraged.—A.G., T.K., D.S.
The list:
Ed Anderson, Sigma Alpha Epsilon; Bill Barlow,
Beta Theta Pi; Ben Barton, Pi Kappa Alpha; Bill
Clausen, Kappa Sigma; Hob Deuel, Sigma Chi;
Les Hagen, Sigma Nu; Jim Hart, Pi Kappa Alpha;
Earl Heitschmidt, Phi Gamma Delta; Jim Hersh
ner, Sigma Alpha Epsilon; Glen Holden, Beta Theta
Pi; Bill Lance, Sigma Nu; Walter Lehman, Delta
Tau Delta; Herb Lombard, Phi Delta Theta; Dick
McLaughlin, Chi Psi; Frank Rauch, Alpha Tau
Omega; Joe Richards, Alpha Tau Omega; Art Ross,
Kappa Sigma; Gerry Smith, Phi Gamma Delta;
Will Urban, Phi Delta Theta; Fred Van Horn, Delta
Upsilon; Glenn Walker, Chi Psi; and Bob Welchf"
Delta Tau Delta.
Another Law Students' Letter
Eugene, Oregon
U. of O. Law School
May 25, 1950
Faculty, and students, University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon
An open letter to the Oregon Faculty and students:
If what you have taught us is true . . .
Secret organizations (as distinguished from rec
ognized organizations with secret rituals, etc.) are
by their very nature bad. Fundamentally, they are
deceitful and basically dishonest. WHEN devoted to
political objectives, they become a real threat to
any society. The history of totalitarian government
forcefully supports this contention.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE MEMBERS
OF TNE ARE EVIL, OR GUILTY OF GREAT
WRONGDOING. Perhaps individually, they now
recognize the undesirability of their conduct. How
ever, a vast number of students on this campus
either do not agree that such organizations are
basically undesirable (Educators take note), or
justify them under the label of “practicality.” Tfee
currency of this attitude indicates that TNE will
soon return; the University’s expose makes this
return a certainty. What do we recommend to pre
vent a recurrence ?
1. Publication of the specific techniques used to
gain political power. If the membership has done
’ anything really wrong, knowledge of the facts will
give students information upon which to base an
evaluation of such organizations not only from the
ethical view stated above, but from a practical
standpoint as well.
2. Publication of the names of the members and
a removal of the muzzle that seems to have been
clamped on them. If these students have decided
that their conduct was wrong, they can do the
most to eliminate a revival. If they have done actual
wrong, subject them to the criticisms of their
fellow students; let them answer to public opinion
—the same public opinion and responsibility that
their methods and University censorship has cir
cumvented. There must be some deterrent to TNE’s
would-be successors. Do not let them think that
the University will protect them from public
opinion.
3. Do not discourage student responsibility
towards such organizations. The University under
takes to encourage student government, represent
AloUa and fyabewell
mg' that it is a training ground for an enlightened
citizenry. The University has suddenly ended the
“training” by the process of censoring information
from the students. Will we find another student
body president with the courage to expose TNE in
light of the University’s treatment of the matter?
The natural justice of the situation demands dif
ferent treatment:
(1) The remaining doubt as to membership pro
tects those who were actually members, and casts
the suspicion upon those not involved.
(2) Full disclosure will reveal the exact nature
of the offenses committed and free the accused
from the danger of prejudiced speculation. In addi
tion, it is likely that participation and responsibil
ity of the members varies with individuals. Accu
rate information will apportion censure as it is
merited.
(3) The Student body has a right to determine if
former TNE’s are worthy of Student trust. The
student body can make this determination if they
know what TNE actually has done. Yet the names
have not been officially released, and we are in
formed that the prohibition against holding student
office may be waived.
Complete factual information is necessary for
effective student opinion. It is as impossible for
President Newburn to keep TNE off the Oregon
campus as it would be for President Truman to
keep communism out of the United States. Unleess
the student body believes that it does not v/ant TNE
it cannot be repulsed. Such a belief cannot be
grounded upon rumor and surmise and' the vaguf
disclosures of a University Official. If the adminis
tration believes that private policing by paid em
ployees can substitute for alert student opinion
and interest, it submitted that they are in error.
In conclusion we reaffirm our desire for complete
disclosure concerning the membership and actual
activities of TNE. If their activities involve vicious
wrongs, appropriate action should be taken. If TNE
appears to have been an innocuous though secret
political organization, we ask the faculty to renew
its efforts to demonstrate the ultimate folly of these
methods.
Jim Harrang
Bill Byrd
Bill Tassock
Maurice Engelgau
Dean Weigle Ends a Successful Visit
It was a brief visit, but pleasant and profit
able, from the University’s and students’
point of view. We’re referring to the two
years that Clifford F. Weigle was dean of the
School of Journalism.
Dean Weigle came to Oregon from Stan
ford, and he leaves Oregon to return to Stan
ford. It seems that California ties are not so
easily broken.
During the brief two years, Dean Weigle
raised the standards of the School of Journal
ism by changing it to an upper division level.
This was probably a greater change than
most students imagine.
Journalism students must now get a broad
background, so by the time they get into
journalism they have something about which
to write—and they know something other
than proof reading marks.
Under the dean, the school has pulled out
from the war-time “all women” slump, and
gained prestige in the eyes of the faculty. A
larger research program was undertaken, a
(Please turn to page six)