What We'll Lose
On April Fool’s day the
house passed a bill giving
coastal states clean*, title to
land beneath the sea.
1 Since President Eisenhow
er said he will sign the bill
(during his campaign) this is
not a joke. At least it doesn’t
appear so to its critics, among
the most vociferous of whom
is Oregon’s Sen. Wayne
Morse.
These critics point out that
the bill “gives away” about
$40 billion of oil, and prob
ably $10 billion more in nat
ural gas to the states. .They
claim that the revenue should
go to the federal government,
and the oil for national de
fense.
Sen. Morse declares that
armies once “moved on their
stomachs.” Today, armies,
navies and air forces move on
i wheels, diesel, and jet propul
sion. All require petroleum.
He goes on to say that today
the U. S. is an oil deficit na
tion—we import an average
of one million barrels a day
to meet our current needs.
It would seem logical, then,
that the federal government
should develop the offshore
resources. Certainly they
should not belong to the navy.
But the arguments that fed*
eral control will lower taxes
are more specious.
They rest on the assump
tion that oil revenues will pay
for defense expenditures, but
fail to take into account the
amount necessary to develop
the oil fields. All available
figures are only estimates.
They’re based on what the
nation will loose if the states
gain the tidelands—money we
don't have now.
But without examining the
validity of the arguments too
closely, we can go along with
the half billion dollars Ore
gon might receive for its pub
lic schools if the Hill amend
ment passes. Unfortunately,
this measure to keep the tide
lands under federal control
and divert a percentage of the
funds to public education ap
pears doomed.
Comments on Two Letters
We'd like to make a couple
of comments on two letters
received this week, one of
which appears on today’s edi
torial page. Both concern this
business of sometime impor
tance, politics a la campus.
Our UIS letter today de
, dares that its basis of mem
bership is broad, open to all
including individual sorority
and fraternity members. At
least that’s how we interpret
their acceptance of “the work
and support of any person”
independent of soul if not of
organization.
A fine idea. Indvidual, not
group, membership in any
organization, political or oth
erwise, to our way of think
ing, is better. Yet, from what
we learned from one of UIS’s
founding fathers, Don Collin,
it is misleading.
He tells us that the one
year penalty rule UIS now
has would be invoked against
either greek house or indi
vidual wishing to exercise
that independence. So, while
open to anybody’s work and
support, UIS is not interested
in supporting any individual
ex-AGS member for the first
year. It does not accept all
individuals equally.
It may well be that this
cuts down on opportunism,
though we feel the cut is
made at the cost of destroy
ing an organiaztion where
greek and independent could
work together.
The second letter, written
by Bob Hooker and appear*
ing yesterday, looks at the
penalty clauses as both the
right and duty of the parties.
They are necessary if the
party is to assume responsi
bility for its candidates, he
explains.
The political realties may
back Mr. Hooker up to the
hilt on that point. Our parties,
if we’re to have them, should
probably be responsible.
Yet we wonder, and we
have before, if these penalties,
however realistic, coincide
with the spirit or the letter
of our ASUO constitution. It
has certain restrictions too—
grades and in certain cases
hours completed. But beyond
that it indicates that any
member of the ASUO can
run for ASUO office.
When a situation exists
where both parties have re
strictions which the constitu
tion does not have, is there
some reason to wonder if
those clauses are constitu
tional?
For while the constitution
tells you, for example, that
if you’ve got the required
grades, 110 hours and thre£
terms at the University, you
can run for ASUO president,
either party may very well
tell you that you can’t. Well
obviously you can still run
independent in the purest
sense of that word, which in
the case of the president
means you might as well not
even bother. The independent
is usually, if not always, at
a decided disadvantage.
Oregon Daity
The Oregon Daily Emerald published Monday through Friday during the college year
except Jan. 5: Feb. 23; Mar. 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11; Mar. 13 through 30; June 1, 2 and 3 by the
Student Publications Board of the University of Oregon. Entered as second class matter
at the post office, Eugene, Oregon. Subscription rates: $5 per school year; $2 per term.
Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of the writer and do not pretend to
represent the opinions of the ASUO or of the University. Editorials are written by the
editor and the members of the editorial staff.
Jim Haycox, Editor Sally Thurston, Business Manager
Helen Jones, Larry Hobart, Al Karr, Associate Editors
Bill Gurney, Managing Editor
Jackie Wardell, News Editor
Sam Vahey, Sports Editor
Asst. Managing Editors: Paul Keefe,
Dick Carter
Asst. News Editors: Laura Sturges, Len
Calvert, Jt>e Gardner
Personnel Director—Kitty Fraser
Chief Night Editor—Anne Hill
Wire Editors: Lorna Davis, Andy Salmins,
Virginia Dailey
Nat’l Advertising Manager: Carolyn Silva
Layout Manager: Jim Soliduxd
Classified Advertising Manager: Beverly
DeMott
DO PM DRINKS AND DATING
Poll Shows Female Conservatism!
The female of the species is a wet blanket. Or so it seems, in
a relative sort of way, according to a recent poll conducted by
the Associated Collegiato press.
Most college students, the poll indicates, frown on drinking
in dormitories and—to a lesser degree—staying out too late on
dates. In the latter case, it appears to be the gal who worries
about closing hours, or sets her own in advance of official lock
up lime.
The results of the poll:
OPINIONS ON DORM DRINK
ING
Should be allowed.18%
Shouldn’t be.15%
No opinion.6r/o
Other .8%
OPINIONS ON DATING (based
on the question, “In your opinion,
at what hour on a Saturday night
should a coed be required to get
back to her dormitory?”)
Midnight or before.14%
By 1 a.m..45%
By 2 a.m.24%
After 2 a.m..8%
No opinion .4%
Other .5%
In both answers, the poll indl
Preview: Spring Sports
-35-1
'Put your back into it! . . . throw that . . . get the lead out! This ain’t
no six day bike race, you know.”
Stadium Hassle
IT COULD HAPPEN HERE
Students at Louisiana State university want a new library more
than they 3o a new football stadium.
Recently the LSU administration announced plans for building a
football plant; students and alums revolted. A petition was circulated
on campus asking the board of supervisors to reject bids on con
struction while alumni representatives put pressure on the state legis
lature to prevent construction until a new library goes up.
ssaia me lsu uany rteveiue:
“This eleventh-hour hope may be
only a futile last stand, but, if we
lose, we’ll go down fighting.”
Which brings ns right back
to our own campus where,
sooner or later, weTl probably
begin to hear rumblings about
need for a new stadium. It
should be a have-or-not-have
affair on the stadium alone,
howewer, for-our library seems
in-pretty fair shape.
We’ve never heard any com
ments about the structural de
ficiencies of our present stadium.
It looks solid enough. But in a
few years time we may antici
pate agitation for a new one, if
certain things happen.
The “things”:
1'. They expect enrollment to
start climbing pretty soon.
2. But students have just “lost
20 yards” on their side to donors
in the expanded grant-in-aid pro
gram. There’ll be less room for us
next year.
3. And, finally, if our teams do
improve as A result of more
grant-in-aid money, a bigger de
mand for seats will exist—from
both students and fans.
If teams do improve, if en
rollment does climb and if tick
et demand (and increased stu
dent interest) is the result, we
are told present stadium seat
ing facilities will be woefully
inadequate. And, while almost
every student here, we’re sure,
is willing to give up something
to brighten the athletic picture
for a while, we don’t want to
give up good seats permanent
ly.
cates the women were more con; |
servativc. Only 12 per cent favor
dorm drinking, and over half')
theoretically scream "take me
home" to the boy friend at or
before one o’clock.
The men, an we might well”
suspect, would Just as soon
make it 2 p.m.—In fact they’re,
split evenly on the two hours,
S3 percent for each.
Comments from students on
this issue were widespread, many
qualifying their preference with a
"unle&s there’s a big dance" or
"except on special occasions."
One woman offered that "it de^
pends a lot on the size of the town
and what there is for students to i
do."
And of course, we’ll have to in
clude the young southern gentle
man from Scwanee, Tenn. who
expressed a reference for "after
2 a.m.—way after!”
We didn't find it mentioned -
but it would lx* interesting to
know just how the answers
would run If the mutual ad
miration of a dating cbule, I
or lack of it, hud been in- ,
eluded.
The 17 per cent of girls who
would just as soon be returned *
home by midnight or before 4
might be serious. On the other
hand, maybe they're still wait-"f
ing for the college edition of
Tyrone Power, with whom they'd
stay out, and out . . . and out. t
Judging from male respons? ’
(more men than women prefer
later hours) we could say that *
the college man is (11 more eas^ ,
ily satisfied or (2) less inclined I
to feel the need of beauty sleep
or (3) other. And we.'ll leave it
here without further comment.
Other gems from the AGP Fea
ture service:
The student council at New j
Jersey’s Rutgers university has
launched a nationwide attack on
fraternity bias clauses. |
The council has sent ques
tionnaires to more than 800
colleges and universities to
gether with a plan to help lo
cal chapters shake off did- j
criminatory clauses in their
national constitutions.
The council recommends that-]
each college, by vote, set a dead
line of 1960 for getting rid of -
the bias clauses—with punish-j
ment for gaoups failing to meet
the deadline.
Life at a North Carolina state
college fraternity house changed.;
abruptly from bells to three
straight demons recently when
police confiscated a nickel slot"
machine from its basement.
A student operating the ma
chine was convicted and paid
the court costs. The alumni"
group which owns the fratern- -■
ity house was sbaked $50.
Everyone else was acquitted,
except the slot machine, which
was iunkeri hv r.onrt nrrt<»r
notes to the editor
*
UIS CLARIFIES
A few words of clarification
are needed about United Indepen
dent Students (UIS) membership.
UIS is a political party that has
set as a broad base for member
ship the independent students of
the University of Oregon. But as
any political party, UIS will ac
cept the work and support of any
person who feels that their own
independence of thought leads
him to its support.
In this way any affiliated stu
dent, not his living organization,
can find a way tq express this in
dependence of thought.
It should be noted that there
are differences between the re
strictive provision of the two po
litical parties.
While the AGS penalty is to j
deny ASUO and AGS offices to (
their OWN members, the UIS re- ,
striction is one to allow affiliated-"
students to exercise independent-J
political thought without tint ot i
opportunism.
The AGS penalty is a “heavy- i
hangs-over-thy-head” method of *
keeping houses within the fold.
The UIS restriction is to help j
AGS keep the houses there. We '
accept independence of thought, :
not opportunism of action that”!
has characterized the political I
situation of the pas_t.
UIS is neither a “USA minus
the four” nor will it ever be a
“Grand Central Station at high j
noon.”
United Independent Students