Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 23, 1963)
Constitutional Confusion New Protests About NS A Are Out of Senate’s Field At its first meeting, the new ASUO Sen ate showed itself to be a competent and reasonable group. The members gener ally discussed topics sensibly and seemed informed on the subjects they were dis cussing. This Thursday, however, the Sen ate will be expected to reach a conclusion on a matter which includes consideration of civil rights, Constitutional guarantees, and, as might be expected, NSA. A group of law students, with Walt Grebe as their spokesman, will appear before the Senate in order to state their contention that if the ASUO joins the U. S. National Student Association this action will con stitute a violation of first amendment guar antees of freedom of speech. They will use this argument in an attempt to persuade the Senate to overrule the recent student vote and not join NSA. Their reasoning goes something like this: all University students are obligated to pay their student activity fee: part of this fee will be used to pay our dues to NSA if we join it; NSA takes stands on certain political issues; therefore, University stu dents are being forced to contribute money to an organization which takes political stands with which they might disagree. This, the law students say, is unconstitu tional. It is difficult to evaluate both this con tention and the general motives of the group. It is quite possible, for example, that this is some sort of joke. It could be an attempt to “con” the Senate into getting all con fused about an issue and thus make a joke out of the Senate, the issue, and the confus ion. It is also possible that this is just a last ditch attempt to keep the University out of NSA. They might hope that by causing enough uncertainty about the issue they might intimidate the Senate. It is not dif ficult to imagine how a bunch of people using legal-sounding language, talking about court action, and citing Supreme Court decisions could be a little awe-inspir ing to many Senators. A third possibility is that the students are actually concerned about civil rights. They might see in our joining NSA a danger that the apparent majority might be treading on the rights of the minority a little too much. By going to the Senate, they might hope to create an awareness of how easily civil rights can be endanger ed. If this is the case, it seems that there are more important issues which concern infringement of our rights than the Uni versity of Oregon joining NSA. We don’t know which of the considera tions is motivating the group’s action. Quite possibly the motivation is a combination of all three causes. We do know, however, that the ASUO Senate will not be able to decide on a legal matter such as this with any degree of certainty. The main problem with NSA now is whether the Senate should consider it self obligated by the recent student vote to join the organization. We think it should. Although the ASUO Constitution does not say that a referendum such as the one just completed is binding on Senate action, we think that the vote, even by such a narrow majority, morally obligates the Senate to take action to join NSA. If the students from the law school a<< tually believe they have a legitimate com plaint, they have a right to appeal to the Senate. But in this instance, we believe the Senate is not well enough informed to consider the legal aspects of the matter and should therefore act to join NSA. The case of the law students should go to a higher au thority, possibly the State Board of Higher Education or the courts. An Unnoticed Reversal On Wednesday, Sept. 27 of 1961 the Em erald reported the following after covering a press conference of University President Arthur S. Flemming: “Flemming described the trend to tighten entrance requirements to cut off the ‘C’ students as following the ‘line of least resistence.’ ” Then at the January 1962 meeting of the University faculty, a plan for limiting en rollments was recommended, never to be put into effect, primarily because of a de cision by the State Board of Higher Edu cation. We doubt that many people put the re cent statement of the State Board of Higher Education, and President Flemming’s com plimentary pronouncements about it, in the context of these past events. The board’s statement that, “if a choice must be made, a high-quality education for a fewer number would be preferable to a watered-down education for a greater num ber” and President Flemming’s comments that the statement is “significant and en couraging” amount to an almost complete reversal of former policy. And a welcome reversal it is. We are ex tremely pleased to see that the State Board is finally assuming the position of leader ship it should in the area of admission standards. One of the main reasons admission stand ards have not been raised in the past is that there are not enough good community colleges in Oregon where students who could not attend state universities and col leges could go. And the reason that there are not enough good junior colleges is be cause all halfway-decent resident students can attend state colleges and universities because admission standards are not very high. It has been sort of a vicious circle. The legislature hasn’t taken the leadership in building an adequate junior college sys tem, and they don’t appear as if they are going to in this session. All indications have been that the cuts in the State Board of Education’s community college budget will be even greater than those proposed for higher education. The higher board’s position of leadership could, if applied, force the issue. By raising admission standards, the higher board would be increasing the number of students who need the facilities of community col leges. The State Legislature would be forced, by the higher board’s position of leadership, to meet an obvious need by ad vancing the community college program. The result—the University, Oregon State and possibly Portland State would not be faced with huge enrollments and their re sulting problems and could thus afford to give a quality education to those who are capable of absorbing it instead of water ing it down in order to educate all. We hope the State Boai'd of Higher Edu cation sticks to its guns and raises admis sion standards at its leading institutions. It would be the first step towards a state system of higher education that would have to take a back seat to no one. « .. Ky*jCtxvi Letters to the Editor Tuition Increase* Emerald Editor, We, the undersigned students of the University of Oregon, wish to express extreme concern and opposition to the proposed increased tuition rates As members of the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, we are particularly concerned, in that this increase represents, to many of us, a serious threat to our continued education in this school Those of us who have embark ed upon the five year program here, have done so with the desire and the intention of fin ishing here. This represents a goal which has and will continue to require countless hours of work and devotion In addition, the architectural program is of such nature as to necessitate the continuity of thought and action obtainable at this school Those of us who have contin ued to return to this school dc spite the steadily increasing costs of living and education, now see our ultimate goal at this school seriously threatened by the sudden and apparently in explicable jump in tuition. If this action is allowed to be come reality, many of us will be forced to change to less de sirable schools or interrupt our education. It is therefore our request that tuition rates lx* more ser iously reconsidered, and all other possible sources of rev enue be more thoroughly inves tigated The futures of many of us depend upon your action. Kenneth R. Walker Jr. in Arch. Editor's Note: A list of 128 other signatures of students supporting this letter is on file in the Emerald office. * * * Baha’i Case Emerald Editor: We, the Baha’i students on the U. of O. campus, are deeply disturbed over the recent perse cution which has been launched against the Baha’i communities of Morocco by the government of that country. This is the first time during the twentieth century, accord ing to U.N. delegates, that men have been condemned to death in a court of justice solely lor their religious beliefs. Also, it is obviously a trial within the U.N. itself of the freedom of worship. On Dec. 17 three of the Baha’is were sentenced to death, five others were sentenced to life imprisonment and another faces a term of 14 years im prisonment at hard labor. The Moroccan Government claimed that the defendants were conspiring against the gov ernment by winning converts to the Baha’i World Faith among the Moslem populace. The charges also included the ac cusation that the Baha’is were part of a political plot to o\ re throw the government, and that they attacked Islam (Morocco is a Moslem church state i There was a telegram sent to the United Nation* Secretary General U Thant, urging that there be an exploration of the case II B. Kavelin, chairman of the Baha'i International Com munity, stated that the “Baha'i World Faith is a religion of peace. It shuns all thing* poli tical In fact one of its Basic tenets is strict observance of the laws of all just government*. A Baha’i would he unfaithful to his religion if he worked against his country's interests or en gaged in any subversive act ' Mr. Kavelin also said (hat, "Baha'is live in 258 countr territories and dependencies throughout the world and strive to contribute to the welfare of peace and of their countries ' Baha'is all over the world were stunned and grieved over this case, especially to find il,a<. a person would be put to death for practicing his religion The Baha'i International Com munity based its appeal to the United Nations on Articles II, IV and VII of the Convention of Genocide, to which the .Mor occan government is a signatory. There were special prayer meetings held all over the world for the prisoners in Mor occo. A further report was s« nt out late in January that the Moroccan Supreme Court <!<• cided to reexamine the case against Jhe condemned men. We are very fortunate in our own country to be able to prac tice freedom of religion and in cidents like this point out the (Continued on f>age 3) OREGON DAILY EMERALD The Oregon Daily Emerald i« published •even time* in September and five day* a week during the tchool year, except dur ing examination and vacation period* by the Student Publication* board of the University of Oregon, Entered a* second claaa mater at the po*t office, Eugene, Oregon, Subicription rate*: $5 per year; %2 per term. Opinion* expressed on the editorial page are tho»e of The Emerald and do not pre tend .0 represent the opini >n» of the ASUO or the Univcr»ity. HON BUEL, Editor MARTY KETELS, Businem Manager TED MAH AH, Managing Editor EVERLTTK DENNIS. New* Editor PHIL COGSWELL. Editorial Page Editor LARRY WILLIAMS, Advertising Manager JOHN BUCHNER, Sport* Editor DCJLCY MORAN, Aftiiytant Managing Editor RON COWAN, MM FKAKE, JANET GOETZE. Assistant News Editor* GEORGE HIGH AM, Photo Editoi LINDA BROWN, Entertainment Editor CATHY NEVILLE, Associate News Editor DICK RICHARDSON, Feature Editor EDITORIAL BOARD: Ron Bud, Phil Cogswell Ted Mahar Everette Dennis, Dulcy Mo an, Lind; Brown Bob Foriyth, Hal snow-, Grant Ledgerwood, D» ug Rngen Janet Goctie, and Bill lutchison
