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