Oregon Daily
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published five da> ' a week dur
ing the school year, except during examinations aml^ vacation
periods, by the Student Publications Board of the I’niversity
of Oregon. Entered second class matter at the post office,
Eugene, Ore. Subscription: $5 per school year, $2 j»er term.
Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of The
Emerald and do not pretend to represent the opinion of the
ASl'O or the University. ln*igned editorials are written bv
the editor ; initialed editorials by meml»ers of the editorial board.
K1L.L, N.MNn AKlilU, E.OUOr ‘
MARCIA MAUN KY, Editorial l’age Editor CHUCK MITCHKI.MOKE, Managing Editor KEN N I KHANS, Adv. Mgr.
SALLY JO GREIG, SAM VAHEY. Associate Editors CORNELIA KOGLE. Nrws Editor
JACK WILSON. Sports Editor DOROTHY BARKER, Ass’t Adv. Mgr, CHARM ION FORD, Office Man.grr
EDITORIAL BOARD: Hill Mainwaring, Marcia Maunev, Sally Jo Greig, Sam Yahey, Chuck Mitchcimore, Cornelia Fogle,
Jack Wilson. A1 Johnson
Chief Make xip Editor: Al Johnson
Ass't News Editot Cay Mundorff, Joan
Dennis. Nancy Castle. Pepi>er Allen.
Feature Editor: l*hi1 Hager
Photo h.ditor: Brant uucfy
Nat’l Adv. Mgr. : Jo Anne MilliKan
l Unified Adv. Mgr.: Arlene Krauss
Women’s Editor l>on>thy West
i ircuumon .'ijjr. : mih \ .mrv
A*M. Sport* Lditon: Jerry Ramify. Jim
Larimore
Kxrcutivf Secretary l*at Hollrv
What Did You Get Last Term?
Grades are out - - individual grades, the
honor roll, pledge grades, house grades.
Some of us are happy, some are not. Few
are indifferent. Some of our fall term col
leagues are not with us this term.
Over a hundred freshmen women with
a 3.0 GPA or better will be honored soon
by Mortar Hoard at a Smarty Party. Other
are begrudgingly starting a term of nightly
study table.
W inter term is nearly a week old. Yet,
“What did you get last term?" meaning,
of course, nothing but your GPA, is still
heard all over campus.
Grades seem to mean a lot to Oregon
students. To some they mean staying in
school or not. Others strive for an honor
roll GPA. Evidently 39 student- aspired
for a 4.0 last term - - and not in vain.
But what else do grades mean? Oh,
maybe wasting time on a snap course or
two to help vour GPA. Or maybe leaving
that fasinating history book so that you
can pass a midterm in another course. Or
skipping a lecture or concert you had
vowed you would attend. Or maybe never
even taking time to develop an interest
in the University's extracurricular educa
tional and cultural opportunities. All be
cause you must study.
Granted, making grades is not the sole
or even primary, in many cases, reason
involved here. Poor organization of time,
activities, yielding to influence from the
crowd - - all play a big role. But, “Have
to study. Gotta make a B in this course
- - is as common a rationalization as any
lor making any ot the above sacritices.
But far more serious than these indivi
dual sacrifices is their grand total. We're
letting our concern for grades completely
overshadow the primary purpose for our
being here: learning. W e make grades good
enough to satisfy our own conscience or
University requirements and then think
we're getting a college education. In our
pursuit of grades we are defying the Uni
versity to fulfill its function.
Let’s make an effort to reverse this.
Let’s start daring that GPA to keep us
from taking the great course we’ve heard
is such a “bear,” or from getting the best
prof in the department even though we’re
afraid our grades might suffer. Let's dare
it to keep us from taking extra time to dig
into the meat of our favorite course; from
going to hear the Tuesday assemblies anil
the Browsing Room lectures.
We’ll be doing ourselves and our alma
mater a favor. We ll be letting the Univer
sity of Oregon do what it is well able to
do: pass on to us a great wealth of know
ledge and give us a never-ending desire
to learn more. This hunger for knowledge
won’t be satisfied by a favorable grade
in a course or by a college diploma. It
will be a healthy, humble type of curiosity,
always with us. And the continual satisfy
ing of this curiosity will enable us to live
fuller, richer lives and more beneficially
to serve each other.
Only then will “What did you get last
term?” connote what it should: “What
did you learn?”■ (M.M.)
U.S. Mid-East Hope: Peace with Honor
America’s latest instrument of national
policy, put forth last weekend by President
Eisenhower, offers much food for thought
on the latest international problem, the
Middle East crisis.
Ike’s policy calls for as drastic a step as
the employment of United States troops in
the Mideast area to halt further Russian en
croachment into the area. But indicated in
the policy are many other points less appar
ent.
To begin with, the U.S. has helped to
patch the differences between itself and the
traditional partners of Britain and France.
Those powers were throttled in their mili
tary action in Suez by pressure from Wash
ington and the UN.
Now we have solidified our backing of our
friends; this by joining in a common cause
against the obviously greater danger of the
imperialistic Russian bear.
Curiously, it may have been a moral obli
gation for the U.S. government to step in
so strongly now in the crisis. Some have
suggested that the refusal of America to go
along with Nasser on the Aswan dam con
struction triggered the dictator’s seizure of
the canal, to save face with his Arab fol
lowers.
At any rate, the United States policy is a
significant one. It is clearly meant as a pre
ventive measure, but provides a powerful
“cure” for another uprising. The contempla
tion of another Korea is not pleasant, but
it would be hoped that strong words may
hold off much stronger action.
The United States has hoped to secure a
temporary foothold of presige in the Middle
East gained as a result of its action in calling
for Anglo-French withdrawal. It must be
easily seen by the Egyptians that America
has no designs on the area beyond keeping
the peace.
Underlying the problem is perhaps the
real cause of trouble in the area—the Uraeli
question. The U.S. has supported Israel
generally in the past but the future bears
watching.
Our policy-makers will undoubtedly have
their hands full with the power-hungry
Xasser for many years, unless a coup elimi
nates him as it did the former Egyptian
leader Naguib several years ago.
But the policy against further aggression
in the touchy Suez area-^-obviously aimed
at Russia—has served to at least issue no
tice to the world of the American hope—
peace with honor. Words have not always
done the job, but President Eisenhower has
promised more than words for Mideast in
truders.
As all policies, the new Eisenhower Doc
trine must be tested by time. Unfortunately
the sound policies go largely unnoticed be
cause of their quiet efficiency and lack of
attention. This policy, we hope, contains
such promise. (A.J.)
Oops!
Ill TTTIll ,!!l MllfJ
f— PtP 01E AADSCLE-MOl/TH TAKE ftXL7UWX?//
Interpreting the News
Ike's Mid-East Proposal
Only Outline for Program
By JAMES MAKI-OU
AP New* Analyst
WASHINGTON F The Els
enhower administration, fi»oe<l
with the necessity uf taking
Home kind of
leadership in the
Middle East
where the Brit
ish and Krench
have been dis
c rented, has
acted dramat
ically but
vaguely.
The President
went before Congress Saturday
with what has been called a
program but which is really an
outline for a program. And. for
the most part, it was not new.
Its vagueness raised ques
tions which may keep the Rus
sians guessing. The questions
will also keep Congress and the
public guessing until Kiscnhow
er’s aides answer some of them.
Neverthless, since action is
needed at this time, and since
some action seems better than
drifting, Congress will probably
approve some of what Eisen
hower has asked. Time and
events will show whether his
judgment was good or bad.
This country has given the
Middle East economic aid. Eis
enhower asked Congress to in
crease it. But how it will be
used he didn’t say. At this time
he probably doesn't know since
it isn’t clear what Middle East
ern nation wants it or would ac
cept it.
He told Congress he wants to
give Middle Eastern countries
military assistance—arms—and
this idea is not new although
Secretary of State Dulles ha*
been hemming and hawing for
months about giving that area
arms.
He held off giving Egyptian
President Nasser arms until
Nasser got them from Russia.
He wouldn’t sell arms to Israel
but left the door open for Amer
ican allies to supply the Israelis,
which they did. He let tanks go
to Saudi Arabia.
Last Feb. 4 Dulles said this
country “does not exclude the
possibility of arms sales” to
Israel and the Arab states
“when it will preserve peace.”
Arms for pro-Western countries
in the area, like Turkey and
Iraq, may pre-nerve peace.
Hut what assurance will the
Klsenhower administration want
from other Middle Kastern na
tions that any arms they get
will be used only for defense or
to prevent rebellion? Me didn't
say.
He naked Congress for ap
pioval beforehand to use Amer
ican force* In the Middle Ksst
to help any ration which asked
for it to atop "overt aggression"
by a nation controlled by Inter
national communism.
Did he really need thla stand
by authority because of some
emergency of which the general
public doesn't know? Or did he
ask it simply us a psychological
Jolt to the Russian* anti Middle
Hast Communist*? Almost cer
tainly the latter.
There Is no indication, unless
the administration has informa
tion withheld from the public,
that Ku»*l» intend* an attack
anywhere. Then what “overt”
aggression was Klsenhower
talking about? He didn’t say.
But except for the economic
help intended to stabilize Middle
Kastern nations, and arms to
quell rebellion, he offered no
plun at all for what *eem* a fur
more immediate danger in the
area: Take-over by the Com
munists from within a country.
It is when he spoke of the
United Nations that the Presi
dent was truly vague: He said
any action he took on using
armed forces would be ' sub
ject to the overriding authority
of the United Nations’ Security
Council.1'
What does Shut mean? Hard
ly lhat he’ dusk the council be
forehand for permission to use
American forces against Com
munist aggression when Russia
sits on the eouneil and could
veto such a request.
What he probably means is
that the United States would
act first and talk to the Se
curity Council second. But this
gives the Soviets the privilege
of announcing the same thing
about what they would call
capitalist aggression in some
area.
Whore does this leave the
United Nations? The council is
supposed to decide what is and
what isn't aggression.