Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 19, 1963)
A Weak Minority Report The Minority Report on Student Discipline Is an Insult to an Educational Community The minority report of the student disci pline committee is exactly what one would expect of a defense of the current Univer sity policy concerning student conduct. It is very weak. One part of the minority report says, “A code of student discipline which assumes that moral growth and character develop ment are consistent parts of the general goals of this University is not only feasible but desirable.” The minority does not defend, clarify, en large upon, or explain this statement. What, for example, are the reasons of the minor ity for holding this view? To what extent should the University try to impose moral growth and character development? By what standards should the characters be de v e 1 o p e d? What other goals of the Uni versity involving moral growth and char acter development should be included in the category of goals? How should moral growth and character development be im posed upon the students: through enforced rules, through suggestions from some Uni versity office, through a required classroom course, through an elective classroom course, through dorm counselors? THE MINORITY report’s view is only a flat declaration. It is, moreover, character istic of the policy Emerald Hall has appar ently held for a long time: make a flat declaration, and if people want to know what it means they can come over to the office and we will explain it to them at our convenience. Most importantly, there is no explanation of who should decide what should be developed in character. It seems implicit in the report that someone in Em erald Hall should make the decision, but the qualifications which that person should have are not even suggested. The second point of the minority report says, “Students of the University have a dual position in society which requires that they live under two sets of rules. ... It is possible for a student to violate rules of both groups at once and therefore suffer some penalty from both or either.” WE CANNOT argue that students are not required to follow two sets of rules. Obviously, they do. But in some cases the rules overlap; that is, a person can be pun ished by the University for an offense that has no relation whatever to the fact that the offender is a student. In these cases two sets of rules exist because no one in the admin istration ever attempted to do away with the rules that overlap. The University now has the power to punish a student for a strictly civil offense. But this isn’t right: University rules should govern students only where it is necessary to maintain the internal disci pline of the University. Specific laws prohibit specific crimes and provide specific punishments in society. In addition to the prescribed punishments of i ; the law, however, a student is subject to punishment from the University, namely expulsion, for “any action punishable un der the State of Oregon Criminal Code.’’ The logic expressed in the third point of the minority report is an insult to t h e University community. “The enforcement of certain rules of conduct for women and not for men,” the report states, “is consis tent with practice and tradition in society generally. The different code is not intend ed to create different classes of citizens but is intended to recognize that society gener ally accords women a different role than men.” THE FIRST QUESTION suggested by this statement is this: Is the University of Oregon supposed to perpetuate the double standard simply because “society” does? In much of the country racial discrimina tion is accepted as a norm. Should the Uni versity also attempt to reflect this in the discipline code, perhaps with one code for the white race and another for non-white races? And who the devil is society? Again, no explanation; just a nebulous name tag. See Emerald Hall for an interpretation. The final recommendation of the minor ity is for a disciplinary officer separate from the Office of Student Affairs to make all judgments. Appeal would be limited only to cases where there had been “an error in the proceedings.” HOW CAN THE minority possibly recom mend that one individual be judge, jury, and court of appeal? (Except, of course, in rare cases of error in the proceedings.) Again, no explanation or justification. Why shouldn’t a student be judged by his peers? Again, no explanation. Nor does the minority consider a very important point made by the majority re port. What about instances of honest error in judgment or inappropriate use of author ity. The minority provides no evidence in its report that the latter possibility was ever considered. The minority report is not even an ade quate defense of the present discipline code. It is a series of short, bland statements. It does not defend itself or make interpreta tions. It merely asks to be accepted the way it is. This is one of the problems the major ity report is trying to solve. Correction In the printing of the minority report of the student discipline code Thursday, the Emerald left out a very important word. One statement should have read, “A code of student discipline which assumes that moral growth and character development are consistent parts of the general goals of this University is not only feasible but de sirable.” We left out the word, “only.” I Letters to the Editor Against Umbrellas Emerald Editor: Mr. E. Palmer Hoyt’s right eous indigation over the spread of umbrellas in Oregon perfect ly voiced my own sentiment and I feel I should like to defend him and the Register-Guard edi torial writer from your “sensi ble” comments on the subject. Let those of us who knew the campus before umbrellas, plas tic rain hoods, plastic book cov ers, plastic rain coats and an automobile for every student bespoke the slackening of spirit and independence among our college youth, let us cherish our poignant memories of^the un coddled young egg-heads of the past who strode indifferently through any kind of weather. But while we are on the sub ject of rain and being sensible, in my day co-eds wore heavy, wooden-soled shoes for rain, clattering a little in the hall ways, I admit, but rising well I out of the average puddle. Now look at what these modern um brella-covered youngsters have on their feet—flimsy canvas af fairs that are wet through half way to the first class. May the sensible Emerald editorial writ er search his own heart, look at his own feet, and ask whether progress is really being made. Mrs. Thelma Greenfield Assistant Professor Department of English ■v.V "You've BEEN ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF OVtUANSr Letters to the Editor Majority Report Emerald Editor: I feel that the Majority Re port of the joint faculty-student discipline committee is a step in the right direction Now is it up to the students and faculty to see that its recommendations are followed. Social change occurs in all so cieties, and it occurs even more rapidly in complex industrial societies like the United States. The University of Oregon is caught in this general cultural setting were out moded stand ards which are institutionalized are no longer valid in terms of actual behavior. This report points the way to a necessary reform of the code and policy of this university to conform to the actual behavior and beliefs of our generation of students. I hope that this Majority Re port is not shuffled to some ob scure committee headed by the Dean of Students or some other administrative officer, but that it will be the opening round of a grassroots debate on the boun daries of university authorit) in the discipline of students and the content of a new policy to ward student discipline. Up to this time too much discretion has been left in the hands of the Dean of Men and Dean of Wo men who as hired bureaucrats should be administering policy set by an independent authority instead of making policy them selves. I would like to see a new poli cy debated in open and free dis cussion. I would like to see dis cussions occur in dormitories and Greek houses, resolutions passed and letters to the editor written expressing beliefs about what the new policy should be, so that next year at this time we could see a proposal or a series of proposals submitted to the students in a general refer endum for their approval or dis approval. This seems to me to be the most democratic way to approach this problem which has concerned so many. W. B. Devail Grad. Student * * * Some Ethics Emerald Editor: On the last page of the April 16, 1963, issue of the Dally Em erald was an advertisement urg ing that the students not vote for the NSA proposal. Listed at the bottom of that advertise ment were several names, in cluding Rick Dumm. Mr. Dumm is shown as being the Produc tion Manager of KWAX. He is not now, nor has he ever been a member of the staff of radio sta tion KWAX. I’m sure that Mr. Dumm had good intentions in having his name listed among the endorsers, but why wasn’t his name sufficient? There is considerable concern on this campus regarding the ethical ami moral values as con commitants of a liberal educa tion Advocates of student extra curricular life continually point to the contribution of the stu dent's activities toward charac ter development One wonders, however, how to bridge the gap between expressed ideals and actual behavior. In this particu lar case, Mr. Duunm assumed for himself a title and a position which he does not have in order to justify his endorsement of a campaign issue This presump tuous act not only shows a lack of ethical and moral values we talk so much about, but casts aspersions upon the very worth of the issue he is supporting In addition, by so doing he also in volves an organization, KWAX, which by law is not permitted to take sides in a political issue. The public image of KWAX is in danger of extreme damage because of this behavior, and certainly places its license to operate in grave jeopardy. Pursuit of excellence? Charac ter development’’ Moral and eth ical values? Social responsibili ty? Liberal education? I wonder William H. Thompson Manager, KWAX Editor’s note: Mr. Dumm as serts that he did not assume the title; the authors of the advertisement assumed it for him. About Letters Letters to the editor must be signed and should include, if from a student, the writer's year and major. If not from a student they should contain the writer’s position at the Univer sity or his address. There is no maximum length for letters but those under 300 words will be given preferen tial treatment. Letters should be typewritten and double spac ed. The Emerald will also publish intelligently-written columns of campus or more general interest either by students or faculty members. Columns submitted should also be double spaced. Preferred length is between two and three typewritten pages. OREGON DAILY EMERALD The Oregon Daily Emerald is published seven times In September ami five days a week during the school year, except dur ing examination and vacation periods by the Student Publications Hoard of the University of Oregon. Entered as second class mater at the post 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 opinions of the ASUO or the University. RON BUKL, Editor MARTY KETF.LS, Busincsj Manager TED MAHAR, Managing Editor EVERl'.TTE DENNIS. News Editjr PHIL COGSWELL, Editorial Page Editor
