the writer nl do Ml tttfd to
Uoeiined editorials or* written by
A Grave Injustice
The student discipline committee’s handling of the Farris
case has resulted in a grave injustice.
Not merely to J. Kelly Farris, but to the rights of Oregon
students m general. Just because a student challenges the legal
foundation and operation of a branch of student government
and the legality of the functions of it and its superior in regard
to an important activity is no justification for the committee to
slap that student down.
We have no desire to make a martyr of J. Kelly Farris, nor
of anyone, ifut what kind of thin-skinnedness is it that makes
the University, through the discipline committee, unwilling
to allow a law student to stir up some thinking about the
basis for operation of one of the University’s operations?
This University is big enough and strong enough to with
stand such stirring to go on without any real damage to it. The
administration is evidently confident that there is no question
of the court’s legality and the whole traffic violation function
of the University. Maybe it is felt that asking the state attorney
general’s opinion is unnecessary, and probably it is felt that
asking said opinion would cause a loss of face.
But a serious point has been raised by Farris, whatever his
ultimate motives and personal conduct of the case. (We are
not making any claims as to the nature of the motives and con
duct; if they be anything in addition to serious questioning of
the court’s operations, they are still irrelevant.) If the point
isn’t serious, it can easily be laughed off — of ignored.
We have no legal qualifications to judge the ultimate legal
ity of the court’s operation. We do feel, however, that the
points raised by Farris are serious and legitimate ones. The
attorney general should have been and should be consulted
for his official opinion.
Such action would do a lot to clear the air. If the administra
tion is truly confident of the legality and—or legitimacy of
its function on this matter, it would be a straightforward way
to satisfy all concerned.
If it is not, then avoidance of such action leaves the function
of the court on a pretty shaky basis.
Whether or not due process has been violated in the court’s
actions we are not the ones to say. Perhaps the function in
question is a legitimate exception, if such an animal exists;
legitimate exceptions to laws and constitutional rights do exist
(example: the non-inciting to riot exception to freedom of
speech.) Bu that has' to be established by appropriate legal
authority.
As for Farris, we can’t see where his actions and the result
ing tiff has done anything significant to “lower student mor
ale” or to hurt the reputation of the University (which
should not be protected by “mum’s the word” philosophy,
anyway.)
Farris has been spouting off for several weks now. \\ e hope
that a student’s right to spout off about any student or Univer
sity function is not going to be limited at Oregon. Democracy
is not based on heads in the sand and gags on the mouth.
“Oh, little town of Bethlehem
Letters to the Editor
Montague's Opinion
EmeralS Editor:
As a law student, and a mem
ber of the student court last
year, I would like to express my
opinion on the current dispute
over the legality of the court as
it is presently constituted.
It seems to me that much of
the point of the controversy Is
missed by Mr. Weber, the
chairman of the court, and
those others who seek to make
the fight one of a clash of per
sonalities. It may be that Mr.
Weber is offended because of
the rigid adherence of the per
haps flamboyant Mr. Farris to
the letter of the law, and the
failure of Mr. Farris to offer
any constructive suggestions
as to how to supply the student
body with disciplinary meas
ures for traffic violations
which can be administered by
the students themselves.
But I would disagree with Mr.
Weber when he states categori
cally that Mr. Farris is duty
bound to desist from criticism
unless he can supply a workable
alternative. In so doing, Mr.
Weber confuses duty with desir
ability, in my opinion.
All that this proves is that
Mr. Farris Is not so concerned
with whether student govern
ment will be able to operate la
this sphere of activity as Is
Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber is to be
commended for his concern
with good student government,
but this hardly suffices as
grounds for attack on Mr. Far
ris's mdtives or appreciation of
human relations. Mr. Weber
might like to ship Mr. Farris
out on a “502” for overacting,
but it is unfair to attack his
sincerity on such flimsy
grounds.
Nor would it seem that Mr.
Farris is primarily concerned
with hidebound legal rules. His
point, in the last analysis, ap
pears to be just this: That our
conduct as citizens of this na
tion is to be governed only by
rules which accord with some
what flexible, but always ele
mental, notions of what has been
traditionally thought to be fair
play; and that the Student Court
doesn’t live up to this standard,
as the court is presently set up.
One of these notions of fair
play which has been Jealously
guarded by our courts Is that
money, or any property, may
not be taken away from us ex
cept by some process In the na
ture of what our national Con
stitution terms “due process of
law.”
Mr. Farris feels, I think, that
the student court, when it deter
mines whether or not a student
shall be deprived of money,
doesn't base its action on pro
cedures which safeguard our
rights to be secure in our pro
perty, as those rights have been
traditionally protected In this na
tion. In the courts, these safe
guards are provided by methods
such as the right to confront
one's accuser, the right to cross
examine adverse witnesses, and
the right to have the facts in the
case determined by a jury.
The members of the Student
Court feel that they are an ad
ministrative tribunal; but even
I n administrative tribunals,
though these safeguards are
relaxed to a degree In many in
stances, the fairness of the ad
ministrative procedure is al
ways subject to court review
for the protection of those
whose rights have been ad
versely affected.
We may be fairly sure that
the student court is fair in its
determinations. From my own
experience on the court, I think
that possibly it bends over back
wards in many cases to see that
a fair result is achieved. But Mr.
Farris's point apparently is that
there is no way to be sure of
this; and that traditional no
tions of what is fair play as de
veloped in this nation require
that some means of assuring fair
play at all times be provided. In
my opinion, Mr. Farris is cor
rect in so arguing.
I believe that the student
court has served a desirable
function as far as student in
terests are concerned, and that
it is more satisfactory to have
traffic regulations enforced by
fellow students than by the ad
ministration. Bitt though stu
dent government Is a game, we
-A Day at the Zoo
Christmas Is Not at Its Best
During The Summer Months
by Bob Funk
Emerald Columnist
Somehow, Christmas traditions
have gotten away from the
Christians, or the naughty Ger
man pagans, or the family, or
whoever con
jured up the
traditions 1 n | j
the first place. SH
the traditions jSffl
now belong to BE
the Chamber ftp
of Commerce. Wt
And in the 1
hands of the mi
Chamber, H|
Christmas has Hi
undergone a change.
In the old days, three or four
weeks before December 25
were considered to be quite
sufficient for the decoration of
a tree, the amassing of pack
ages, and the grand depletion
of father’s pocketbook.
Now the attack on the poc
ketbook begins sometime quite
soon after the 4th of July,
when the Chamber of Com
merce puts the greenery on the
lamp-post, and the stores start
drifting their windows with
Lever Bros.’ snow.
The Thing to Do, nowadays, is
to buy your Christmas presents
so far in advance that you forget
where you hid them (or perhaps
the persons for whom you have
(Please turn to page three)
must, In my opinion, piny it
cording to the ruled, and wt,u
Mr. Farris suggest* id that u
have not been doing this.
If he Is right, and I belie
that he Is, we should make ru'
by which we can play the
as it should be played. This
something the administration h
apparently refused to do. It
not something which Mr. Far;
should have to do for the admi
lstration.
Malcolm Montague
Third-year Law Sturir
Principle Important
Emerald Editor:
'The reaction to the Farr
student court controversy ,
hibits again the tendency of
large portion of the people,
overlook the importance of prl
ciple.
Farris was performing n«
only a right hot a dnty by c al
Ing to account a body whfe
be felt to be faaettoalag ll|<
gaily. Further, those w i
maintain that the ease j
“much ado about nothing." ,
that the “court Is bank-ally ft
y>e good of the atudentn.” c
that the court “serve* its pin
pose,” and should thereby i
allowed to continue to funetiy
regardless of sound legal Mi
have committed a moral u ros
by disregarding the law.
Government is a ccntiif
among individuals for their jp
tual benefit and protection. It
upon this contract that laws a
built. It is evident, then i if t
governmental contract bo a ko
one. -and be faithfully adhar
to in the making of laws', th
the loose or falty administruti
of the laws or of the varic
governmental functions is.
fact, opposed to the benefit •»
protection of the people.
Richardson Wilbanks
Larry Blssett
Who's Responsible?
Emerald Editor:
In a letter to this papi-r ^
Carl Weber stated his opiui
that where a court purports
have disciplinary power over
individual, it is wrong for t-fi
individual to challenge the le^
authority of such court unless
has prepared a system of j;
tice to replace it.
The students of this Univefli
are entitled to know the nam
of those in the ASUO senate *1
were responsible for the s lecW
of such a man as chairman of t
student traffic court.
William T. Llnklaler.
Leo V. Nuttman
-The Looking-Glass
UT Gives Quite Adequate
Performance of Irish Drama
By Toby McCarroll
Emerald Critic
The class of plays we call
"Irish” are unique. Laughable
comedy and dire tragedy are in
tricately interwoven; the appeal
is to the heart and not the mind
of the audience.
Sean O’Casey is one of the best
known of the Irish dramatists.
and "Juno” is
perhaps his most,
familiar play. ,
The plot revolve?,
around a Dublin |
family in 1922 § *
The father i s
lazy, comical and;
something of a:
liar. The mother
has allowed hard^
work t o affect I
n e r perspective’^^^^™l"""»"««
but overflows with-love. The son
has been injured in one of the
Irish faction “wars” and is con
siderably confused and flight*
ed—and quite unenjoyable.
daughter is somewhat fnvoV
"Juno and the Paycock" '
An Iruh Drama fay Sean O'Casey ■
"Captain” Boyle. Phil Sander
Juno Boyle . Donna Mauldin
Featuring: Phyllis Johnson, Ken OIJc
and Scott Lennar
With: John Jensen, Don Findlay, SaB;
uel Frear, Oon Van Boskirk, Kloj
Louise Von Groenewald, Barbara Ny
berg, Ula Mae Hostetler, Janie Moor;
John Buchanan, Bill Hazen and Rut
sell Cowell.
Directed by Frederick Hunter, Set t
Howard Ramey. Length: 2 hrs 2
min. University Theatre.
and all for the new moveme]i
labor and otherwise.
Their economic condition'*
bad, but prospects are imprm
ed by a promised “legacy
The legacy is so worded lip
the family doesn’t get an;
thing. (Incidentally, I belies
O’Casey was mistaken as *1
the law here). The daughter*
pregnant and deserted. The tjj
is shot. The mother leaves 11
(Please turn to pat/e three)