Charter Day Evaluation
The case of the missing student is still
the biggest problem of the Charter Day
committee. And last week's fourth com
memoration of the event indicated that no
ready solution for the problem can be ex
pected for next year, at least.
Why concern over student non-atten
dance at something that involves primarily
faculty and administration in the first
place? Faculty and administration are the
participants in most of Charter Day’s
events, to be sure, but Charter Day itself
is a commemoration of the University’s
founding by the University community.
And students are the essential part of any
university community.
There were those who said that the stu
dents did nof know enough about the Char
ter Day observation—that ju>t a good job
of publicity and promotion would result in
the desired turnout. Increased public rela
tions in this area each year has produced
little results, however. Mure student mem
bers were added to the committee; student
leaders pleaded through letters and brief
talks to living organization<; houses were
urged to sit together. But each year the .'in
dents stay away.
anticipating the student' logical
maneuvers when any classes are dismissed
has failed also. The Student Union has
been closed, the library has been locked,
but the students find other places to spend
an afternoon—quite obviously.
Some said it was simply a matter of the
weather. For three years the academic pro
cession proceeded only down the corridor
of McArthur Court; the rain- took care of
the colorful cross-campus march. And if
there were no procession, many students
not otherwise reached would not be drawn
into the main convocation. But last week-'
program proved that sunshine has even
greater drawing power than shower—away
from the Charter Day event.
Still others said that the program was
the deterrent. The student- who attended
the lectures with the promise of a cultural
ly satisfying experience came away dr-ap
pointed too often—and left the following
year’s program for other “first-timers.” But
the Charter Day committee, backed by a
fund allowing generous honorariums, will
go anywhere in the world to find speakers.
Unfortunately, the succe'S of the commit
tee has been poor, these critics sav, cli
maxed by this year’s program.
And this comment may be the most tell
ing of any. The speakers at the afternoon
convocations have all too often been out
shone by the men who addressed the even
ing assemblies. But attendance at the even
ing programs has not been so much of a
problem because Eugene townspeople add
to the Student Union ballroom crowd con
-
siderablv. And the afternoon convocation
is the principal event of Charter Day tin
time when atendance by the student seg
ment of the University community is most
desired.
The 1956 convocation address by Presi
dent Lee Du Bridge of the California In
stitute of Technology was not spectacular.
Students, disappointed there, made no spe
cial effort to get to the evening assembly
where Robert Redfield made one of the
most outstanding speeches in University
history. It was not the first time that many
thought the order of speakers should have
been reversed.
This year seems to have been no excep
tion. Walter Paepcke’s main convocation
address was unimpressive to say the least.
George C.amow’s evening talk was excel
lent. Gamow’s subject, however, \Vas not
especially suited for a Charter Day obser
vance, particularly with a Condon lecture
series taking up approximately the same
subject in two weeks.
The experience of a college generation of
Charter Days points to one overwhelming
difficulty in program arrangement: the
quality of the speaker cannot, unfortunately,
be judged by his background only.
Too often it is the case that the very
successful activities of a man in the board
room of the laboratory or the administra
tor's office do not necessarily qualify him
as'a man with a message for a Charter Day
audience. Here, let us say that xve realized
the difficulty under which Paepcke labored
as a last-minute substitute for Robert
Hutchins. Hut we had almost forgotten
this until hi- repeated mentions of the fact
convinced us that he was nothing but a
man off the bench.
Solution of the speaker problem, a diffi
culty in itself, may not be the automatic
answer to a really successful Charter I )ay.
It probably i-n’t. Students need more than
a promise of outstanding addresses be
fore they will forsake the Side for obviously
less recreation pursuits. What this promise
would be. we-do not know. (And if the
Charter Day committee finds out, we would
like to know; sincere student interest or
even attendance at anything on this cam
pus is a big problem.)
But failing to answer this que-tion, the
Charter Day committee should not aban
don the event. There is still value in stop
ping to look at our beginnings and con
sider our future. And Charter Day offers
this value to an entire university communi
ty, sitting down together. Hut if it is to be
an entire university community, we might
do well to present speakers who can com
ment more ably on our beginning or our
future.
Seconds and Inches
Three weeks ago, at about this time, we
were discussing the importance of a feu
seconds in a football game—then, it was
with a touch of regret. Today, we’d like to
say something about the even-greater im
portance of a few- inches—and it’s with an
almost uncontrollable enthusiasm that we
tackle the subject.
A deviation of a few inches in the arc of a
kicked football—plus, of course, a team
that doesn’t know the meaning of the
word “quit”—has changed the connotations
of several common words for thousands of
Webfoot fans.
A rose, for example, is no longer some
thing presented at serenades or placed on
floats; it’s now a word with more magic
than “Abracadabra” or “Shazam.” And
Pasadena has changed from a mere suburb
of Los Angeles to a destination.
All of which, we realize, is almost disas
trously premature thinking. There’s 'till
California (victor over USC this weekend
and also eligible for a Rose Howl trip this
yearj and four other rough opponents to he
overcome before all this dreaming becomes
a reality.
Hut it sure feels good to see our Webfoots
perched atop the conference standings. And
a little enthusiasm never hurt anybody.
Footnotes
Publisher Robert Harrison of Confiden
tial, praising the “reaffirmation ... of the
freedom of a publisher to publish and .. . the
freedom of the public to read,” left out a
couple of words. “Trash” and “filth” should
have been in that sentence somewhere.
Good I hing He Wasn’t .1 Pledge!
2U. C,
University’s RO i'C Program
Has Faults as Well as Values
Shortly after the finish of the
Civil War a far-sighted Con
gress. along with abolishing
slavery of the body, passed a
bill allowing the establishment
or land
•Olleges. In e*
•-ence, thiH mean*
ire provided for
illotment of fed
eral lands to
aublic iniititu
'ions of higher
learning. w h ci
would in turn
igree to inn l ruct
th»*ir mule stu
uenis m me mystei ics and in
tricacies of the military.
It i.s my purpose today to
evaluate the outgrowth of this
art, to discuss the role of the
underclass KOTO program at
the University, its values and
its faults. This is not a dis
course for women, campus mas
cots or inarticulate presidential
aspirants.
\ defense of the military pro
gram on this campus must
hinge on the fact that the serv
ices need high quality leaders
in large quantities, and that
these can best come from the
cream of the nation's youth, its
college students. With this in
mind, u<* must ask first, how
"*‘H does the program provide
for good leadership, and seeond,
how well is the program woven
into the fabric that is the ( Di
versity ?
Almost any jlraftee or en
listee will tell you that in the
services the KOTO boys are the
most disliked and incompetent
of the officers. This general at
titude of course has partly to
do with the fact that college
kids are ‘too’ smart, they see
themselves as better than other
people.
But even more vital are the
more or less parallel facts that
what a person emerges with
from college has no bearing in
the services and therefore that
tne very nature of the ROTC
program precludes continuance
by the more qualified students.
What's wrong with the ROTC
that makes these two facts
true ?
One might say that the insti
tutions of the military and of
higher education are diametri
cally opposed in outlook and
practice. Does this mean that
the two should be entirely sep
a rated ? I hate to think *o Hut
yet, In every impact the HOT*'
program la In conflict with the
spirit of the University.
Where else in the I’nlvendft,
esrepl by stupidity or ineompe
lance, is such stress placed on
role, un<|Ucstlonad acceptance
and subordination of mind?
Nothing revolts the thinking
|MTson more than the Idea that
the mllltors should lie accepted
as it is now, without crtlieisin.
Uut, answers the mllitury
man, this is the heurt of the
military. True, and if the mili
tary would realize tins basic
discrepancy with the scholastic
life, reconciliation might h.
affected.
This might require a rather
hypocritical nf proach. to realize
what must hi* on the fine hand,
while evaluating It on the other.
Instead, the ItOTC is commit
ted to the doctrine that one
must know what is presently so,
nnd at the same time must ac
cept this as right. This is un
tenable.
The actual organization of the
program and the caliber of in
struction leave much to he de
sired. When a semi-literate in
structor, teaching a class out
side in below freezing weather,
tells his class, "You can’t think
with your hands in your pock
ets," or when a true-false test
comes up with a question sm h
(Continued on pagt 3)
OREGON DAILY KMKKXI.I)
Dir Oregon Daily Emerald is pul.! Iml
four tiroes in Scptrinl r uni fur da>* a
VM-ck during the school year, exce pt during
examination and vuc.iturn periods, !>y the
Student Publications Hoard of the I'nivrr*
hity of Oregon. Entered ;n second « l.»*s
matter at tlir post oPicr, Eugene. Orejn.
Subscription rates: $5 per year, $J per
term.
< Opinions expressed on the editorial page
air those of rbe Ktnciaid and do not pre
t« ml to re|o« M-nt the opinion of the AS l O
or the University.
( HAREES M ITCH El.MORE, Kditor
DARN < API'S, Pithiness Matiagri
^ ^ * Editorial Page Kditor
•Ss. (^ M I.NS <) X. Managing Editor
(»KA\ hS, Advertising Manager
CORNELIA 1 OOI.E, WIKI.JAM
< <>()k, AsvKiate Kditors
I'll IK 11 ACER, News Kditor
t/RAMSEY, Sports Kditor
JOANNE Mil,MOAN, Ass t Jiiiv Mgr.
EDITORIAL HOARD: Charles Mitchel
more, Jack Wilson, Allen JoHusmi,
( orildia Fogle, William ( <*,k. Phil Ha
ger, Jerry Ramsey, Waruc Woodman.
. n*’ I'-'Ht" : Wayne Woodman
Day hditm Joan .viatis. Evelyn Ohen,
l epper Allen, Mike Porrrtci, Pat
Night Editor1 : Dave Eortic, Don Rob
insoti, Prank Ingram.
Women’s Editor: Kathy Cook
Office Manage:-; Alice McKindrir
v AoS’k ^,lv- ‘^Kr-: Huger oni th
Nat I Adv. Mgr.: Charmion hord
Executive Secretary: Pat llo ley
Chief !photographer: Natlu.u Mull
( assifie l Maoagci . Warren Rucker
Accounting Clerk: Erlcne V\ liitchou.se