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