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)