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