Student Court Unnecessary
Back to committee this week {joes the
proposal for a "student judiciary board."
The ASUO senate last Thursday twice
passed in favor of the board "in principle."
This does not mean, however, that the sen
ate necessarily will formulate a student
court.
What then does it mean? Evidently it
means that most of the senators rather like
the idea of "peers judging peers," which is
the slogan that backers of the student judi
ciary board idea have tagged onto the plan.
The Emerald last week advised against
adopting the proposed board. After studying
the proposal further, we are even more con
vinced of our previous stand: the proposed
board—if it should ever be put into effect—
is not needed and would not be, by any
stretch of the imagination, more effective
or efficient than the present discipline set
up.
Persons who favor the plan, we feel,
have not examined it closely. This is es
pecially evident among members of the
senate. When the proposal was brought up
in the last meeting, a quick vote "on prin
ciple" was passed with only two nay votes
after no discussion. Few senators question
ed the general idea of the plan until they be
gan -to work their way through the pro
posed court’s constitution article by article.
Finally, during a recess, it became apparent
to remaining senators that the entire idea
should be studied more carefully before
wading blindly into technicalities. Even
tually, after moving back through "Robert's
Rules of Order" red tape, the senate voted
to reconsider the whole idea "in principle."
On the second "principle" vote, the ayes
won again, but only by a 12-7 margin (a
number of senators had left the meeting; by
this time.) Then, too. on this second vote, at
least a few of the senators spoke against
the proposal.
The chief objection to the plan has been
raised by senators Duncan Ferguson and
George Brittingham. Their point was this:
Couty backet’s of the plan offer one good
reason to formulate such a board? The
backers replied that the proposed board was
"an extension of student government" that
would institute a more healthy "peers judg
ing peers" atmosphere in student discipline
cases.
But these rather weak arguments are
weakened even further by the fact that three
students already sit on the present student
faculty discipline committee. Any student
who appears before a dean has the right to
take his case before this committee. Hence,
“peers” already judge “peers" when a stu
dent wants “peer judgment." (Indications
are that few students would really want
“peer judgment”—in the present student
faculty committee, faculty members often
have had to lessen a punishment suggested
by the student members.)
The present discipline set-up is more ef
fective and efficient than any purely student
board could hope to be. W e hope the com
mittee that is considering the proposal will
examine it carefully. We think they’ll find
the proposed student judiciary board is un
necessary.
* * *
Footnotes
Latest sign to adorn a small foreign
car: Please Don’t Crush Me, I Eat Harmful
Insects.
Our Oontem,
\poranei
Propaganda Tests
(Editor’s Note: The following
article is reprinted from the
April 12 issue of The Economist
of London.)
Last week President Eisen
hower admitted that, although
in his view the Russran abandon
ment of nuclear tests was just
a “gimmick,” not to be taken
seriously, yet he might have
been mistaken when he refused
to try and counter-attack its
undoubted propaganda value by
explaining in advance why the
United States itself might sus
pend nuclear testing unilaterally
and unconditionally after the
series which is to begin later
this month. Whether or not
American testing will actually
be abandoned depends officially
on whether or not the coming
series gives the scientists all the
information they want.
But it looks as if, when the
mater next comes before the
National Security Council, the
President will move over to the
side of those who put political
and psychological considerations
ahead of military ones in the
matter; according to reports
this group is headed by Mr.
Dulles, while the Secretary of
Defense and the head of the
Atomic Energy Commission lead
those who insist that military
needs must come first.
This disagreement, it is said,
explains the lack of initiative
and imagination in the Admin
istration’s approach to the sus
pension of nuclear tests, a ques
tion which has been under dis
cussion for two years. But even
now the President is trying to
avoid taking the final decision;
he has ordered his advisers to
present him with an agreed view
on this and other aspects of dis
armament policy by. the end of
the month.
There is a good military case
for the coming series of tests—
and a good psychological one,
too, if only it had been presented
before the Russians seized the
limelight. Warheads for the
long-range missiles on which
American defense depends in
creasingly are to be tested and
so are small atomic weapons for
tactical use. The emphasis will
be on “clean” explosions, which
do not spread radioactivity.
Only those who oppose all
nuclear tests on principle, such
as the international group of
distinguished scientists and citi
zens who have filed suit in a
Washington court against the
Secretary of Defense and the
AEC, argue that the coming
series should be abandoned. To
do that, even critics of the Ad
ministration realize, would be to
give the Russians, who have
just finished their owrn annual
series of tests, a real as well as
a propaganda victory.
Many of these critics are,
however, urging that, as a
counter-propaganda move, the
United States should publicize
the “dirtiness” of the Russian
tests which are alleged to have
brought a record amount of
radioactive fallout around the
world.
But the AEC opposes such a
campaign, partly because it
claims that the facts could not
be given without exposing its
secret system of collecting in
formation and partly because
that information will not have
fully assessed for months—and
w’hen it is the notorious Amer
ican tests of 1954 may turn out
to have been more noxious.
Letters to
the Editor
Emerald Editor:
The Emerald's recent series
of letters discussing the contro
versial nuclear weapons testing
has been of great interest to
many persons. I would like to
offer my opinion on a subject
which I feel has a bearing on
this controversy but which has
a much more general applica
tion. This subject is the position
of the scientist as an instrument
in the development of public
opinion.
Dr. Pauling and the signers
of his now-famous petition are
outstanding examples of the po
sition in which the American
scientist finds himself. A sci
entist is paid to objectively ac
mumulate, analyze, and inter
pret data concerning a given
problem. Seldom on the basis
of these objective results is
there any emotional dispute as
to the validity of the findings.
The data are published in jour
nals and newspapers, and thus
the result of scientific investi
gations is made available to
the general public. If someone
should discover a variable which
had been neglected, or improve
a technique, or prove a theory
which challenges the interpreta
ton of the data, we accept these
changes, and in the scientific
world these changes are called
progress. At any given time,
scientists as well as societies
can only function within the
limits of their knowledge.
The effect of radiation on liv
ing organisms has been of sub
ject of intense study in recent
years, and to date radiation bi
ologists have concluded essen
tially two facts. (1) Any amount
of radiation has certain detri
mental effects on the living
(Continued on page 3)
Subtle Pressure
¥
PlRt HOSfc J1
"I liSTA HAVE SO MUCH TKOiaLE 6EUIN6 'THEM IN Ai'OOSWG
HOURS— WiLLVOU 'TURN ON THE WATER, MAE:"
2)ai/e
ClAA
Latest Anonymous Brochure
Lacks Reason, Responsibility
One morning last week I
found, instead of the usual,
cheery campus daily, an unusual
publication serving as reading
matter with my
breakfast. This
was a mimeo
graphed tract,
which Informed
me, "HO HUM
ITS ELEC
T I O N T I M K
OK APATHY
ARISE.”
Heading fur
ther, I discov
ered th;it thin was th«* inspired
title for a fair example of writ
ten gabble. Ostensibly its pur
pose was to arouse an apathetic
student body to the creeping
control of the student govern
ment by a malicious administra
tion.
My immediate reaction was
to connect this sheet with the
Committee for Action, a group
with similar purposes and meth
od* that circulated coni|mrahle
foolish disgruntlement last term.
My suspicion seemed to is* con
firmed by a comparison of print
and by the parallel use of
broken Knglish.
■ In this regard, before the
group!?) becomes permanently
deactivated by reason of ex
pulsion ion academic and not
political grounds) I would sug
gest two improvements: first,
that they) ?) borrow or steal a
typewriter that strikes capitals,
and second, that they! ?) sit in
on a few comp classes, or, bet
ter yet, secure a copy of Rudolph
Flesch’s “The Art of Plain
Talk." (The question mark is
inserted because I doubt that
any collective mind would be so
ignorant as to use such bar
barisms as "to” for “too,”
“vigorus" for “vigorous,” "is”
for “are,” . . .)
Of course, I did wonder at
this pathetic use of English by a
group attempting to influence
college students. Speculation has
led me to believe that this was
perhaps a foreign group some
latter-day followers of Bakunin
who, instead of the philosophical
pleas "property is theft,” are
organized under the banner “the
administration is a thief.” I
await the dynamiting of John
son Hail or the assassination of
certain notables—not without a
certain amount of glee!
The one message I did get
from this garbled communi|i
tlon Han Hint it Hui unti-ad
ministration and that it was at
tempting to draw some tenuous
relationship between the fail
ings of student government and
this ogre, the administration.
For this reason it hardly re
quires serious consideration. A
belief in simple anti mistaken
cause-effect relationships arises
from simple and mistaken think
ing. I'm reminded of certain
Seattle new* commentator
whose sole basis of analysis was
the belief that the "Papal Con
spiracy," not international com
munism, was the biggest threat
to the free world. People listened
to him because he was ludicrous.
Now, I’m not an apologist for
the administration or student
government. But a mixture of
fact, falsehood, hearsay, and the
like sheds no light on the one
thing about which this group
is correct, namely, that there is
something wrong with our stu
dent government.
In many ways student gov
ernment is in a deplorable state.
Signs of this would Is- a high
school teacher coming to the de
fense of an errant (and mis
taken) senator (and fraternity
brother), a student body that
doesn’t give a tinker's dam, a
raging ease of Victorian reac
tion, and so on. It would he silly
to claim that this has no rela
tion to the administration and
its policies, but to explain our
troubles wholly or even mostly
by such reference is even sillier.
A more fruitful field of in
quiry would be the many causes
of the predominance of the
Greek system, and the conse
quence of this, the general dis
(Continued on page .))
OREGON DAILY EMERALD
The Oregon Daily Emerald i» published
four times in September and five daya a
week during the school year, except during
examination and vacation periods, by the
Student Publications Hoard of the Univer
sity of Oregon. Entered as second class
matter at the jwist office, Eugene, Oregon.
Subscription rates: $5 per year, $2 per
term.
Opinions expressed on the editorial page
are those of The Emerald and do not pre
tend to represent the opinion of the ASUO
or the University.
ALLEN JOHNSON, Editor
GARY CAPPS, Business Manager
WILLIAM COOK,
Editorial Page Editor
JERRY RAMSEY, Managing Editor
BILL BRYANT, Advertising Mgr.
JACK WILSON, PHIL HAGER,
Associate Editors
PEPPER ALLEN, News Editor
BOB MULL1N, Sports Editor