Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 7, 1963)
Weak Majority Endorsement Senate Action Not a Meaningful Indication Of Student or Senators’ Viewpoints Although some senators seemed to ob scure the central issue, the ASUO Senate managed a weak endorsement of the Stu dent Discipline Committee’s majority re port last Thursday. The close 11-10 vote was not a meaningful indication of either the senators’ or students' sentiments on the student discipline controversy. Four senators announced after the vote that they agreed with the majority report's philosophical basis, but would not support the document’s specific recommendations. Campus viewpoint as expressed by the ASUO President, AWS President, the ASUO Cabinet, and other groups indicates that the students would not be likely to stand behind the Senate's 11-10 vote. The four senators who clarified their stands did not want to give unequivocal sup port to the majority report, yet they seemed to be slightly confused about the motion they voted on. It is apparent that the sen ators voted from two different frames of reference. Some seemed to be backing the majority report on its general philosophy while at least four others voted in regard to specific recommendations. Perhaps Sen ator Bruce Brothers’ motion to endorse the majority report should have been clarified as to philosophy or specifics prior to the vote. It seems rather strange that the four senators who agreed in philosophy didn't clarify themselves before they took their stand. From its inception the majority re port has been presented as philosophical guidelines for a revised discipline system. The essence of the report is expressed in the statement which contends that it is “the responsibility of the University to educate each student so that his capacity for ration al and creative thinking and the ability to choose wisely between alternatives are de veloped to the highest possible degree. Moral growth and character development are thtts viewed as possible outcomes rather than the primary purpose of the Univer sity.” Some senators who voted against the majority report express concern over the recommendation which states that “the University should distinguish its proper disciplinary responsibilities from the con trol functions of the larger community.” This would mean that the student would be directly answerable to the community for violations of its required code of conduct. The University in turn would only exer cise its disciplinary powers when the stu dent’s conduct directly and significantly in terfered with the accomplishment of the University’s goals. The argument given here is that a student who commits a civil offense is often given “a better deal’’ if he is turned over to Uni versity authorities for discipline. Under the majority report recommendation the civil authorities would prosecute many cases now handled by the University. Those who support special treatment for University students would hardly find their views compatable with the concept of equal ity and justice. By the same token they are not willing to accept the responsibility which the majority report demands. The majority report is not necessarily a “liber alization” of rules, but guidelines to re define the philosophical basis for student discipline. With acceptance of the majority report students would get some liberaliza tion of the present discipline code, but would also take on an added responsibility in facing equitable justice. Special treatment calls for value judg ments from civic authorities who report that a student offender is “really a good boy and should be given another chance.” A second value judgment is required from the Office of Student Affairs. For some this special treatment system has been beneficial. Some students who might have been suspended from the University have been admitted to law and graduate schools on the dean’s recommendations. But just as the special treatment has worked to the advantage of some, so has it been detri mental to others. It isn’t often that we hear the latter stories, but those who advo cate the special treatment philosophy should think twice before taking a strong stand on the majority report. Professor Lorwin On France A Distinguished Scholar Looks at the Atlantic Union It is unusual when we comment on the Browsing Room lecture in an editorial, but we think that this Wednesday’s lecture de serves special mention. Van R. Lorwin, professor of history, will speak on “France and the Atlantic Com munity.” Lorwin is considered one of the leading authorities in the United States on the comparative history of European economic, political, and social movements of the 20th century, especially on the his tory of France. He is interested in the French labor movement and has written a book, “The French Labor Movement.” Lor win has spent most of his life doing re search and studies on France. He has lived for several years in France, and was a stu dent in France before World War II. At his lecture Wednesday night, Lorwin will discuss the resurgence of France after World War II; the vitality of their econ omic recovery; the difficulty of the French in finding a suitable political life; De Gaulle’s rejection of Britain’s entry into the European Common Market; the launching of the European coal and, steel community, which preceded the Common Market; and the long crises of French relations with Indochina and Algeria. Last month Lorwin attended the Society for French Historical Studies at Harvard and was chairman of the committee on Cur rent French Problems in Historical Per spective. He has served with the State De partment, including attendance as a mem ber of the Staff of U.S. Delegations at var ious United Nations meetings in Geneva and New York. Lorwin is a brilliant conversationalist, and a man with a pungent wit, and should provide a very interesting as well as in formative talk. We urge all to attend the lecture. % I KEEP HEARING BEllS. EIRiT WJ PtAL,RNt> THEN 7ME1 1011: Letters to the Editor Favor Majority Report Emerald Editor: We would like to clarify our position on the recent Senate stand in favor of the majority report of the student discipline committee. The resolution passed 1110. Because of previous commit ments we were not present for the vote. We understood that we could cast absentee ballots; however, our assumption proved to be false. We both FAVOR the majority report. If our votes had been counted, the motion would have been passed by a stronger 13-10 vote. I.inda Peterson, ASl'O Senator at large Warren Ilt-inke U.C. Men's I>orm Rep. • • • Brother Antoninus Emerald Editor: Those of us who experienced Brother Antoninus and his poetry, however we may feel about the success of his read ing, realize the monumental task he faced in communicating his impressions The true artist, in whatever media he expresses himself, must give freely of himself to give meaning to his work. In so doing, he places himself in a highly vulnerable position, with his most personal beliefs exposed to the public. One may accept or reject his work, then, by reason of its mes sage or its expression. Yet re spect must be given a true art ist, as one would respect a friend who gives a gift, whether the gift be appropriate or not SURELY, THEN, the attitude of the introductory speaker at last Wednesday’s Browsing Room Lecture was insulting at best. He began the program by carefully pointing out Anton inus’ faltering past, and then explaining how the Dominican’s power arose from the conflict between his Catholic orthodoxy and his free spirit as a poet.. He ended with noting which campus organizations had “borne the burden” of sponsor ing the poet. After the recital, he expansively concluded that the reading had been “interest ing,” and that questions would be inappropriate, "especially in this case.” We the undersigned not only reject the introductory speak er’s work, but his very position in the art of speaking. Frank Cox Senior, Gen. Science Steve Vartan Sophomore, Architecture Phil Russell Sophomore, Pre-Med. * * * Vandalism Emerald Editor: I am the owner of a small but conspicuous, British-made sports car. I park it in a University owned and petroled lot on tlie corner of 15th and Alder. Yesterday (Thursday), some time between 8 a m and 5 p in , some person(g) (who was evi dently familiar with the rather tricky combination involved in entering these vehicles) literal ly "lifted” the horn button from the car's steering wheel while it was parked in a corner space of said lot, within full view of two fraternities (I’d like to remark here that over a year's interval, when the vehicle was parked in lots and on streets in an up town Portland apartment area, it was never the object of any sort of vandalism ) GRANTED, THIS is not a big deal, hut it is plenty irritat ing to me, not only in the incon venience of being temorarily without a horn—a necessity at times for the small car owner who must drive more defensive ly (especially in Eugene) than the driver of a Detroit monster —but in the not so insignificant expense involved in replacing the item Parts for these cars, even small ones, arc not cheap. The fact that this particular object is not routinely kept in stock by the local dealer will only add to the stature of ifs value. I'm sure, in the eyes of the petty pilferer. Who could have done the deed? Surely not a University of Oregon student, since I gath er from the persual of multitud inous articles and letters re obsolete dorm regulations and Codes of Conduct in the Emer ald during past weeks that to day’s student is by far too ma (Continued on page 3) ORKGO N DAILY KM KHALI) The Oregon Daily Emerald is published seven lime** in September and five day# a week during the school year, except dur ing examination and vacation period# by the Student Publication# Hoard of the University of Oregon. Entered a# second clans matter 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 ami do not pre tend to represent the opinions of the ASDO or the University. EVERLTTK DENNIS, Editor LARRY WILLIAMS Business Manager JANET GOKTZE, Managing Editor RON COWAN, News Editor DOUG HAGEN, Editorial Page Editor JIM SPEER, Advertising Manager DICK HU HARDSON, Associate Editor JIM FRAKE, Assistant Managing Editor RAY MAST, Sports Editor CANDY HEMMING, CATHY NEVILLE, Assistant News Editors GEORGE HIGH AM, Photo Editor CHUCK MEGGS, JOE RERGKR, PHYLLIS ELVIXG, Associate News Editors ALKNE SHARFF Entertainment Editor JO GRISWOLD, Women’s Editor
