Oregon Daily
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published five days a week dur
ing the school year, except during examinations and vacation
periods, by the Student Publications Hoard of the University
of Oregon. Entered as second class matter at the post office,
Eugene, Oregon. Subscription rates: $5 per school y^ar; $2
per term.
Opinions expressed ou the editorial page arc those of The
Emerald and do not pretend to represent the opinion of the
ASl’O or the I’niversity. I’nMjined editorials are written hy
the editor; initialed editorials hy member* of the editorial l*oard.
Legislators, Put First Things First
Oregon lawmakers will be confronted by
many demands for more money when they
convene in Salem next January. None will
be more worthy than the State Board of
Higher Education’s request for a 15 per cent
increase in college faculty salaries.
Until about two months ago, almost no
salary increases had been granted profes
sors since 1953. Late in July the State Emer
gency Board allowed a five per cent in
crease — a token raise to meet an emergen
cy, but hardly adequate to retain the state's
best teachers for long.
\\ hile Oregon has been standing still in
this field for the past four years, other states
have given their professors liberal salary ad
justments. Consequently the University has
found it increasingly hard to hire good in
structors at the salaries the legislature al
lows. And what is equally serious, more of
the “permanent” staff members of the state
colleges have been moving to greener pas
tures these past two years than ever before.
The unprecedehted act of the State Emer
gency Board was greatly appreciated by the
faculty. But it was only a stop-gap to meet
an emergency, to delay the crisis in Oregon
education until the legislature could meet.
The problem is now where it belongs, in
the lap of the legislature. For this issue is
much more than fair treatment of profes
sors; it is one of.great importance to all the
people of Oregon. Onr professors can go
elsewhere and make more money, if they
must. But most of Oregon’s young people
are depending on their state institutions to
give* them the good education they will
need.
This is not a matter of selfish interest to
those of us now in the University, for edu
cational quality won't slip too much before
we are all graduated. It is of vital interest
to future collegians, for if Oregon ever quits
trying to compete wifh the other first class
systems it would take many years to re
build.
The State Board of Higher Education has
also asked for funds to construct more
buildings. \\ e hope the legislature sees fit
to grant these requests. But it would be
tragic if our lawmakers substituted such
physical improvements for the crying need
of our state system, higher faculty salaries.
Please, legislators, put first things lir-t.
In education there’s nothing any '‘firster’’
than the best teaching possible.
Renewed Interest in Student Gov't?
\\ hat has become of apathy in student
government ?
The ASUO Senate listened for three
hours last week to 35 students who had
petitioned for two openings on this bodv.
“Old pros” on the Senate can remember
when a turnout of ten was considered un
usual.
What was more important than the total
number, more than twice as many as ever
before, was the thought evidenced by a
number of the petitioners. There were a
number of very significant ideas expressed
during the interviews.
Last spring a record 59 candidates sought
office in the ASUO election.
The trend seems to be. toward more in
terest. Whether this -interest demonstrated
by office-seekers has also reached the aver
age student is open to question.
The cause of this renewed interest is un
known. Our guess is that it is a combina
tion of several factors. The abolition of the
two-party system, which had been erected
on an artificial division, was a step in the
right direction. The greater than usual ini
tiative shown by last year’s Senate is also
probably involved. And the fact that 1956 is
a national election year may have brought
out the political instincts in our student
leaders.
All this is a great challenge for the pres
ent Senate. It begins the year with a re
newed interest in its activities; what it does
this year will determine whether this inter
est can be retained.
Popular Pastime?
•TUM»1T UUIOlJ
7 NO WONOfR^
f WF FLUNK. SO
MANV — they
l SPEND ALL THElR
\ time ORiNKlNG^
^VOORFEE S'
Letters to the Editor
Emerald Editor:
On the editorial page of Fri
day's Emerald appears an article
written by a gentleman, cjassi
fied as a “news analyst" for
Associated Press, purporting to
demonstrate that “both parties
had a hand in killing aid to
education.”
Since by both the bi-partisan
quality of the criticism and the
title of "news analyst" the
writer might appear to be giving
fair and complete appraisal of
the facts involved in the death
of the Kelley Bill, it Is unfor
tunate that he does not do so in
reality'.
However that may be. it is
certain that the writer did not
make reference to the most re
vealing political facts of the
defeat of the Democratic bill for
federal aid to education. If he
had done so. it would arpear
that the Republicans in Con
gress had, with a calculated
cynicism, defeated the bill.
It was common knowledge
that the bill could not be passed
if it contained the Powell
Amendment withholding all aid
fr«yn any state which had segre
gated schools. Yet 90 Republican
representatives yoted for the
amendment and then voted
Interpreting the News
Nasser's Dream for Egypt and Self Reason for Seizure
By JAMES MARLOW
AP News Analyst
WASHINGTON UPl — Egyp
tian President Nasser is like a
boy who suddenly put on long
pants and then kicked grandpa
out of the house. Now grand
pa, all confused, is asking the
neighbors to help him get back
in.
The United States, Britain
and France Friday carried their
case against Nasser to the
United Nations’ asking that
body to find some solution to
Nasser’s seizure of the Suez
Canal Co.
He said it was Egypt’s ca
nal and Egypt’s company—al
though chartered in Egypt the
company is owned mainly by
French and British — and he’d
run it to suit himself.
The United States and its al
lies' don’t want to let him run
it without some kind of inter
national control. By himself he
could shut out their ships at
any time. But he won’t accept
their idea and they don’t know
how to make him accept.
In the meantime, the two
things they didn’t want to hap
pen have happened:
1. Nasser’s cool defiance of
the Western powers has cost
them prestige in the vital Mid
dle East and the whole Arab
world.
2. Russia, whom they des
perately wanted to keep out of
the Middle East, has gained new
influence by helping Nasser,
first with arms, and now with
Russian pilots who are operat
ing in the canal and probably
will stay.
If the Western Big Three had
let themselves get as excited
years ago about what Egypt
had done to a much smaller
power, Israel, as they did when
Nasser turned on them, they
might not be in their present
fix. Since 1948 Israeli ships
and cargo have been denied use
of the canal although it is sup
posed to be open to all.
Up to 1952 when Nasser and
his army friends kicked out
King Farouk and took over,
Nasser was an international no
body. No one outside Egypt
had heard of him. Even in his
own country, as an army colo
nel, he was a secondary figure.
But he had dreams of splen
dor for Egypt and himself: To
make himself and his country
the leaders and rallying point
for the whole Arab world which
was aflapie with nationalism
and intensely anticolonial.
Nasser may turn out to be a
common adventurer, but he still
could argue that there was jus
tice in the Egyptian desire to
be a truly sovereign power
than ran its own affairs. There
is a hitch in that, of course.
Nasser .didn’t think he could
do it by himself, or all at once.
Knowing the desire of the West
to retain influence in the Mid
die West and Russia's desire to
gaih influence, he played one
off against the other to get
the most out of both.
He got arms from Russia,
economic help from the United
States and then a promise of
aid from the United States and
Britain to help build the Aswan
dam. This was his plan to in
dustrialize and revitalize Egypt
and bring it into the 20th oen
tury.
But Nasser overplayed his
hand. He got nasty with the
West. Secretary of State Dulles
was under pressure from Con
gress not to let the swaggering
Nasser have the money. Dulles
and the British suddenly can
celed their offer.
That, the Egyptian says, was
why he seized the canal: To
use the money from the tolls
the ships pay to build the dam.
He probably would have seized
the canal sooner or later any
way as part of his dreams for
Egypt and himself.
against the hill with the amend
ment in it. A total of 0? Repub
lican* did this If one "paired"
vote he counted.
That thin action tva* not based
upon principle la demonstrated
by two facta. One I* that Wil
liam L. Dawson of Illinois. a
Negro Democratic representn
tive, voted against the amend
ment but for the bill after it wa
added. The other fact I* that
this withholding ha* nevei been
a part of other federal aid pro
visions upon which these same
people have voted. A recent
example is the federal highway
progiam where there was not in
cluded a provision for withhold
ing aid from states whn do not
pei-mit integration on commer
cial conveyances which use
these highways for intra state
travel.
Also, the Republican leader
ship in Congress and in the Ad
ministration aided and abetted
this sabotage by not attempting
to support the bill or to prevent
the lethal amendment. One Re
publican representative went be
yond this passive resistance to
introduce another highly objec
tionable amendment. This was
Glyn of New York, n foe of aid
to education of* long standing.
The above facts arc consider
ed most pertinent by the Na
tional Education Association
Journal. They arc set out in nn
article on page 363 of th* Sept.
Issue. The article shows all
votes of each representative
and explains how and why tiic
bill was lost.
The squabble over whether
the Democratic or the Admini
stration formula for dispensing
the aid should be used Is fur
ther evidem •* of Republican bad
faith. The Democratic formula
is one which was previously
urged by the Republicans in de
feating a previous Democratic
aid bill which embodied the
same formula that the admini
stration urged In the Kelley
bill controversy. It wasn’t the
disposition of funds formula
the Republicans were really
fighting. Rather they were bent
on defeating any form of fed
eral aid to education.
Perhaps it should be empha
sized that the Kelley bill did
not contain provisions forward
ing any form of federal con
trol over local education.
Edward N. Fadeley
Third Year Law Student