Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 22, 1963)
Speech Platform, Free, or Why Silence Is Golden By TED MAHAR Emerald Managing Editor In front of the Student Union stands a concrete lectern called free speech platform. It re places a wooden structure that was removed by the Physical Plant, and that had looked for months like it was going to rot into splinters. The reason for the platforms is free speech; whenever a student feels that he must speak out on any top ic he can do so at the free speech platform. On the front of the wooden platform was the inscrip tion “Every new idea at its be ginning is precisely ih a mi nority of one.” The free speech platform shows a tendency to go unno ticed. A speech was given at its dedication, a debate was held on the relative value of a new football stadium, another speech was given. That takes care of last year. This year a speech was given, ASUO President Neil Goldschmidt tried to stimulate interest in the platform by giv ing a speech, and a few candi dates in the ASUO elections gave speeches. Quite possibly the free speech platform will never be used again. The one and only reason is that it is simply not the na ture of students to speak out individually. When they act, they act in groups. To be more precise, they do not act so much as they react Toward the end of the 1950's teen-agers and young adults were tagged by some the “Silent Generation.” That term, applied to students today, would not be inappropri ate. TO ONE who has followed events at the University of Ore gon this label might seem to be misapplied. Students have on many occasions shown them selves to be both active and vo ciferous. For example, in the winter of 1961 nearly 300 stu dents contributed to an adver tisement in the Register-Guard to take issue with a statement by state representative Grace Peck. In the spring of the same year over 200 students actual ly picketed the administration building, Johnson Hall, to pro test permanent secret student files in the office of student af fairs. Moreover, it is a rare is sue of the Emerald that con tains no letters to the editor. But the students who took ex ception to Rep. Peck in the ad vertisement were on pretty se cure ground. She had been quot ed in newspapers as having said, in effect, that students had no right to criticize a legislator. To say that her statement was in correct in a democracy was hardly going out on a limb The group that picketed John son Hall was quiet, orderly, and pessimistic. Few seriously ex pected that anything would be achieved. It was impossible to tell the demonstrators from curious bystanders. The entire demonstration took less than half an hour. Except for the is sue involved, it could have been a flag - raising ceremony or a funeral. LETTERS to the editor as a type of public forum are in a class by themselves. They are written in private for an audi ence of which the majority would not recognize the author personally. Although it is possible for a person to make a name for himself on the campus by hav ing several letters to the- editor published, it remains a relative ly anonymous way of speaking out in that the writer does not face his audience at the moment the point is made. And if the writer elicits crit icism, it is usually through other letters to the editor rather than face to face. On the average, the Emerald receives three letters a day. In a year only about 400 people— less than four per cent of the University population — use even this comparatively safe out let for public opinion. Students prefer to remain as inconspicu ous as possible. Students are reluctant to speak out or stand out for many reasons. One is that the per son who stands out must pay a penalty. In the past speakers who have been extremist in one way or another have been pun ished. When the state organiz er for the John Birch Society spoke in the Student Union ball room two years ago he was all but hooted off the stage. When a religious fanatic tried to crown himself "King of the Uni versity of Oregon—for Good” he was pelted with tomatoes, eggs, and shaving cream. Last fall during Homecoming three students defied tradition and staged a protest sit-in on the University Seal—about 25 paces from the free speech plat form. They were harassed by onlookers and finally covered with mud thrown by those who had been in the “Kangaroo Kourt” enforcing Homecoming - traditions. They had their sym pathizers in the protest of Home coming traditions, but none vo cal enough to speak in their be half or attempt to prevent the mud-throwing. A student named Gayle Os * 1 MAVE ALOW CENTER. OF <£R/AVrPY." burn who, as a dorm counselor, decided she did not like the practice of keeping secret files on students in dormitories made the files public and thereby lost her job. "For the first few days I was a heroine," she said later, “and then I was a bum. Even people who were my friends and knew me acted as if I were an anarchist." Ken Wilson, former chairman of the IFC Tribunal, reported the same situation. Having strug gled for a year for reform with in the fraternity system, he felt he had failed when it became ob vious that hazing had been so flagrant winter term. To draw attention to the problem, he re signed his chair. “THE FIRST day I was a mar tyr,” he said, “but the day after I was a traitor.” When the ASUO Senate vot ed winter term to demand that Emerald editor Ron Ruel re sign because of the Emerald’s coverage of the hazing incident, one senator, Rick Palmer, resign ed in protest. The day after he resigned he was lauded. A week later those who remembered the incident at all felt Palmer had acted foolishly in resigning and passed off his resignation as an empty gesture. A student who has drawn at tention to himself by trying to save the Side has come to be re garded as simply "some kind of a nut.” There is also a popular opin ion that writers of letters to the editor are cranks. Almost every student has at one time or another heard someone say. “I always read the editorial page to see what nuts are writ ing letters to the editor;" or "Letters to the editor are the funniest thing in the Emer ald.” Even the comparatively sane practice of writing let ters to the editor has its draw backs. The idea that only chron ic malcontents write letters to the editor dies hard; in fact, it thrives. THERE ARE other reasons for students' not wanting to speak out. Students see their role as listeners. Only rarely does a student speak out in class, and if he does it is al most always to ask a question. Some students live by a motto which says, “If you keep your mouth shut, he doesn’t know who you are.” They are glad the instructor does not know them, and they will do what they can to see that he never does. In a situation where a course grade is of supreme im portance it is the height of folly to risk alienating the grader. The University is a big place. Relatively few undergraduate classes have an enrollment un der 50; many have more than 200. The dormitories cover the equivalent of several square blocks. And the University is getting bigger. In an institution being operated for the masses, the individual must .give way. Each student knows he must adjust to the fact that he is but one small voice among many. A don’t-rock-the-boat at titude seems to be the most util itarian in a situation where events and the powers behind events are bigger than any indi vidual. Any reaction against this well-oiled machine Is gen erally silent rather than vocal. When the student comes back from the crowded classroom, he does not come back to solitude. He either returns to his cu bicle in the dorm or his room in the frat. There is almost no such thing as privacy in either place. Moreover, if one is to live symbiotically with one’s roommate, concessions must be made. Again, it is easier to adapt than to quarrel. STUDENTS must adapt them selves to much more than the size of the University. Almost all students find themselves questioning values they had tak en for granted most of their lives. Some leave the religion they knew in their youth to become a member of another church, an atheist, or an ag nostic. Many see their parents, and, indeed, society in general, in a different light than they ever had before Partially be cause it comes in the normal maturing process, and partly be cause of what they see and hear at the University, students find that their values are in transition. As a consequence, they are hesitant to speak out because they are not certain that what they feel is right College students of today are, it is said, more sophisti cated than those of twenty or thirty years ago. For one thing, they are open-minded enough to see that in almost every situ ation there is room for argu ment. Most feel that it is wise to be silent until all the devel opments of an issue are brought to light. With this sophistica tion, too, comes the knowledge that overnight changes will likely never be brought about Therefore, they see little sense in making an issue out of most things Anotner reason lor remaining .silent is that many students feel they arc "just passing through.” They will not be at the Univer sity forever What problems they have with the University will be over when they graduate. The dissatisfaction of most stu dents seein relatively minor in most cases, and they are cer tainly among the most tempor ary in the world Like their val ues, the students themselves are in transition AND, AS most students rea lize, the world outside is no less massive than the University and no more private If prob lems at the University of Ore gon are ephemeral, those after graduation will not be To most students the size and consequent problems of the University are 1) merely a fact of life, 2) not the University’s fault, and 3) /ertainly less formidable than the size and problems of the graduate’s world At the Uni versity, as well as in the world outside, a person will put on a shell of reserve, check which way the majority is going, and slip quietly into the main stream In such a world, many feel, speaking out not only gains nothing, but can actually involve risk. Students fear criticism both in the present and in the future Students are extremely sensi tive to peer pressure and will do almost anything rather than risk the displeasure of their associates. Moreover, students who plan to enter teaching, pol itics, government work, or sim ilar fields will often refrain from stepping out of line be cause they fear that it might somehow work itself into their records and thus jeopardize their career opportunities. But if students decline to be come involved and speak out, they are still responsive If they do not initiate action, their re actions can be quite energetic. A good example of this preno menon is athletics spirit. Many complain that student participa tion in organized yells is mis erable. And perhaps it is. But their spontaneous reactions to what happens on the playing field is as enthusiastic as any one could want. THE SAME phenomenon is evident in the student body elec tions of last spring term. The petitioning deadline had to be extended because only 37 peo ple petitioned for 15 offices. Fi nally 59 petitioned, but still left four offices uncontested. Yet, despite the small turnout of candidates, the number of people who voted was propor tionately no smaller than it had been in the past. Once some one—anyone—had come for ward, the students responded. This year the voter turnout was smaller than last year’s, yet more people made themselves candidates. It has been said that both reactions were the result of a weak AM 0 Senate this yeai More people ran because they felt the Senate hid to be improved, and fewer people vot ed because they felt such an inactive body was unv orthy of their consideration In any event, it will certainly be a rec ord il half or more of the stu dent body votes in any election. On other occasions student reactions of events has been strong After the religious fan atic had been humiliated on the steps ol the Student Union the whole campus was shocked, and letters to the editor criticizing those who threw the eggs and tomatoes streamed in for two weeks after the event When Communist leader Gus Hall spoke at Hayward Field vir tually the entire University turned out to hear him It is true that Hall’s speech had been promoted tremendously by pa triotic extremists, and that stu dents more or less hoped some thing violent would happen; yet at the same time they applaud ed enthusistically when the man introducing Hall proclaimed that every person in the country is entitled to the right of free speech Even-if students do not use free speech themselves, they feel strongly that everyone else should have it. So the free speech platform stands in front of the Student Union. The sun fades it, t h e rain wears it down, and the wind whistles hollowly past it If it happens that someone ever does use it again, a student audience is sure to gather. But that is not likely The fact is, most students don’t even notice that it’s here Letters to the Editor Emerald Editor: I was most pleased to find that the minority took a firm stand and boldly stated that ‘ society (the majority?) generally ac cords women a different role than men .’’ Before this Great Truth was revealed to me. I must blushfully admit. I had been wont to consider whether the discipline rules were good, better, or worse for the students, whether—my face turns red even to admit this now—they were stunting the intellectual growth of those with “different roles,’* and whether they wen1 even in conflict with the U.S Constitution's amendment which I need not mention since the amendment conflicts with the minority’s Truth and is thusly wrong and immoral and all sorts of unmentionable things. But now, since I have been enlight (Continued on page 3) OREGON DAILY EMERALD The Oregon Daily Emerald is published seven time in September and five days a week during the school year, except dur ing examination and vacation period* by the Student Publications Board of the University of Oregon. Entered a* 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 pee tend to represent the opinims of the ASUO or tits University. RON BUEL, Editor MARTY KETELS, Busincst Manager TED MAHAK, Managing Editor EVERETTE DENNIS. News Edi: >r PHIL COGSWELL, Editorial Page Editor LARRY WILLIAMS, Advertising Manager JOHN BUCHNER, Sport* Editor DULCY MORAN, Asiistant Managing Editor RON COWAN, JIM ERAKE, JANET GOETZE, Assistant News Editors GEORGE BIGHAM, Photo Fditot LINDA BROWN, Entertainment Editor CATHY NEVILLE, Associate News Editor DICK RICHARDSON, Feature Editor EDITORIAL BOARD: Ron Kuel, Phil Cogswell. Ted Mahar Everette Dennis, Dttlcy Moran, Lindt Brown Boh Forsyth, Hal snow, Grant l.edgerwood, 5>> ug Hagen Janet Goctre, and Bill Hutchison
