Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 7, 1963)
Future of the Code New Discipline System Cannot Operate Without Dedication of Administrators The institution of any new system re quires the dedication and committment of those involved in its administration. The new student conduct code released last week by President Flemming is no excep tion. The code calls for a new system under which students themselves will take major responsibility for the administration of dis cipline. The new code recognizes that “the responsibility of the University is to edu cate each individual so that his capacity for rational and creative thinking and his ability to choose wisely between alterna tives are developed to the highest possible degree.” The new code recognizes the need for college students to have independence and maturity. The old system will fade into the University’s in loco parentis past. It ap peared that the new code would become operative immediately. It appeared also that students of the University would em mark on a new and exciting adventure. Just two days after President Flemming’s announcement two University administra tive deans addressed a meeting of the Salem Mons’ and Dads’ Club. The tenor of the speeches, according to a Salem jour nalist, indicated that the University had bitten off more than it could chew in adopt ing the new code. The deans, Mrs. Golda P. Wickham, dean of women; and Francis B. Nickerson, new ly appointed associate dean of students, have denied that the Salem newspaper story is accurate. Whether or not the deans were quoted out of context is not the major issue. The tone of the deans discussion of the code was described as “apprehensive” by Mrs. Ralph B. Sipprell, president of the Salem Moms Club and two others present at the meeting. Mrs. Wickham’s position on the new con cept of student discipline was made very clear last year when she signed the minori ty report on discipline, which sought to preserve the old system. We know that the new code was not established with Mrs. Wickham’s blessing. Mr. Nickerson, how ever is another case. He was hired to help institute the new code. As independent dis ciplinary officer his is an important posi tion in the new system. Without his dedi cation the new code will not reach its highest potential. There is always room for discussion and debate within the Univer sity community regarding any administra tive policy, but we hardly think that it is proper for administrators, who are sup posed to be instituting the new code, to ex press their doubts at a public meeting. The question is not whether the new code will be established. This has already happened. The duty of the deans is to make the new code workable. We also believe that it is only fair to point out that accord ing to Mrs. Sipprell’s letter most of the parents came to the meeting “having no knowledge of the code other than what ap peared in newspaper reports (and) were deeply concerned about the code and its implications.” Mrs. Sipprell said, “the par ents left the meeting as apprehensive about some of the code’s provisions as the speakers, and felt that the code was adopt ed without adequate consultation by the faculty with parent groups.” We might point out that every element of the University community including the Oregon Moms and Dads were consulted by President Flemming in the drafting of the new code. The faculty was involved and so were the students. No one can fairly com plain that he was not consulted. We deplore the attempts made by the two officers of the Moms and Dads organi zation, who sought to influence the Salem Statesman to “tone down the story.” We believe in the new concept of student discipline. We likewise are concerned that our administrators do more than give the new code a “fair trial.” It is time for University administrators to stop stumping the state in opposition to the new code and come home and administrate it. The future of the code rests in the hands of the stu dents and administrators. We hope they meet the challenge. Rush and Freshmen Orientation This year formal rush was scheduled prior to orientation week so that rush and the personal crises which it presents to freshmen would not interfere with place ment tests and orientation meetings. We do not believe that this year’s proced ure was satisfactory. Members of Greek living organizations had to leave summer jobs two weeks early to put on a rush program for a much smal ler number of rushees. For fraternities, rush was an expensive enterprise in which hundreds of dollars are spent on pamphlets praising the achieve ments of members and the organization. Prospective members were entertained at parties and other gatherings during the summer. These expenses as well as the loss of summer income make rush for the fraternity member a large investment. The dividends from this investment were mea ger—there were fewer rushees and more drop outs this year than in the past. This was true of sororities as well. Pre-orientation week placed the greatest burden on the rushees. They, too, had to quit summer jobs. They found it necessary to pay extra room and board. Placing rush before placement tests resulted in a va cuous, boring orientation program. Orientation to the University through rush is social, not academic and not con sistent with the objectives of an academic orientation program. Rushees are presented with a back-slapping, join-and-conform image of campus life where emphasis is on personal appearance, who you know, and idle prattle. For those aspiring to pledge and for the members, decisions made on this basis can, have, and will continue to bring disappointments. Inter-Fraternity Council and Panhellenic will review their rush programs this fall. In their own best interest, they should plan deferred rush in 1964-65. Fraternities par ticularly have been apprehensive about de ferred rush, arguing that the long period before formal rush week will be filled by an expensive and time-consuming seduc tion of frosh “nuggets.” This is a weak argument. IFC is capable of setting up rules against “dirty-rush” tac tics, and Panhellenic has proved itself to be a rule-making body, par excellence. Three years ago, the Faculty Advisory Council recommended deferred rush. Dean Robert Clark, Dean of Faculties and the President’s office have expressed concern about current freshmen orientation. IFC and Panhellenic would do themselves and the University a service if they were to initiate action for deferred rush. Herblock IIIw “Observe Closely, Mi Amigo^ Out With Oimlity Pearson Would Lead University Back to 1926 By EVERETTE DENNIS Emerald Editor It was a sleepy, little country college, not much more than a Saturday afternoon f o o tball school. Twenty nine new teach ers joined the faculty that year. With a couple of excep tions they were a rather undis tinguished lot, mostly old Ore gon grads without advanced de grees, who had come hack to teach This was the University of Oregon in 1926. It is difficult to imagine what the University SEN. WALTER PEARSON Education’s Arch Foe was like in those early years long before the empire-building schemes of the 40’s when the University’s physical facilities developed. The Excellence Kick And it is equally difficult to draw a profile of the school prior to the excellence kick of President O. Meredith Wilson, whose administration gave birth to the Honors College and brought many outstanding fac ulty members. The intervening years have also seen the development of Oregon’s competitive bidding power for national research grants, thus bringing an even more distinguished faculty. It seems incredible that any one would want the University to regress back to the conditions of 1926, but unfortunately some one does. State Senator Walter Pearson, a Portland Democrat, who took his degree from the University in 1926. A Dim View of Education In the intervening years Sen ator Pearson has taken a dim view of the school’s growth, which he believes is far beyond the standard which the state can afford. As the years went by Walter Pearson, class of 2t5 has become an influential mem ber of the state government Once state treasurer, president of the state senate and a candi date for governor, Senate Pear son’s views have been impor tant in the development of pub lic policy. What it was that soured Wal ter Pearson on higher educa tion no one seems to know, but it is evident that he has never been a dedicated friend of the University. In the past two de cades his roars have staunchly opposed increased education spending. Halls at Education Senator Edward Fadeley of Lane County, Pearson's junior by several years, believes that the Multnomah County legisla tor “is afraid his followers will find out that he is a college graduate and disown him so he madly flails away at the state’s public higher education ” A few days ago, as everyone expected he would, Walter Pear son announced that he will op pose the legislative tax bill, which comes before the voters in an Oct. 15 election. Ironically Pearson is vice chairman of the Senate Taxa tion Committee and not only helped draft the controversial tax bill, but also voted for it. Champion of Students But suddenly the same Sena tor Pearson, who voted against the bill to provide bonds for dormitories and married student housing last year seems to have become an ill-disguised cham pion of students. The legislator has made it clear that in the event of a spe cial session of the legislature, he will introduce legislation to strike down the State Board of Higher Education’s projection, which would raise academic standards and tuition to main tain quality education. Said Senator Pearson: “It is my intention to introduce a bill prohibiting increase of fees or raising of scholastic require ments for resident students.” “I do not think we need rec ognized leaders as teachers. I think we can get better teach ers from the average teacher group, rather than those who spend their time writing books, which students are required to buy the next year.” He has summarized his po sition most effectively in the (Continued on pac/c 3)
