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