Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 1, 1963)
A Lesson In Montana Tlx? Far Right, Higher Education and Academic Freedom There has been a lot of soul-searching among Oregon educators since the legisla tive tax program was defeated on October 15. Some observers of the state's political scene believe the election results are indi cative of a growing ultra-conservative, anti government climate. This atmosphere would not be conducive to an expanding higher education system or academic free dom. Some prominent political leaders are “running scared" believing that the new austerity mood of the electorate may have its toll on individual legislators next year. At present there is fiscal hysteria among state administrators and uncertainty re garding the citizen’s motives in turning down the tax bill paired with the active participation of elements of the frantic right in the successful no-vote campaign leaves many open avenues for the extreme right. Oregon could be on the verge of the course taken by several other western states that have become Birch-ridden in re cent years. The implications for higher edu cation in a situation such as this are fright ening to say the least. The chaotic state of higher education in Montana is a vivid example of the direct relationship between academic mediocrity and the “avoid controversy" policy promp ted by right wing strength within the state. Time and a number of other publications have recently probed the crumbling Mon tana situation focusing on the resignation of Montana State University President Har ry K. Newburn. Newburn is a former presi dent of the University of Oregon. Writing in Frontier, the western opinion journal, in September Leverne Hamilton describes the influence of Newburn’s avoid controversy attitude on the faculty of the university. The Newburn administration, Hamilton writes, “used its control over salaries, pro motion. hiring and firing to punish those of whom it approved and to reward those who helped build its idea of a proper public image of the University.” Hamilton says “black marks” were assigned to professors for “negative public service.” On one oc casion an assistant professor who publicly opposed private fallout shelters received almost no raises for three years although “his teaching and research were admittedly outstanding.” Another case involved the firing of an associate professor with seven years service to the University rather than give him ten ure. “This brilliant teacher and exceptional scholar had threatened the precious image by such activities as a one-man parade on U.N. Day, after Montana’s far-right Gover nor Tim Babcock refused to proclaim it.” The writer said 1962 was the year of the great exodus of faculty members due to lack of academic freedom. He maintains that the Newburn policy was prompted by the ultra-conservative mood of the state. The result of the Newburn policy as sum marized by a report of the Advisory Com mittee to the Dean of the MSU College of Arts and Sciences was a “deteriorating academic climate.” Some University of Oregon alumni have misgivings about Oregon’s “image” in the state and wonder about the relation ship of Gus Hall, big time athletics and other controversy. If these alums are really concerned about the University fulfilling its role as a seeker of truth and knowledge, we hope they learn by the mess in Montana. A university cannot afford to have its val ues shift with the political climate of a state. Janet and the Sportswriters Since the turn of the century the story of the fight of women for equal rights has been one of a struggle against almost over whelming odds, entrenched, unbending op position and against that almost insuper able barrier—tradition. Yes, success has crowned the struggle for the vote, for equal rights, for later closing hours—but one struggle remains. That is the lone struggle of a charming young lady who has the unlikely position of sports news editor for the Emerald. Our Heroine, Janet O’Dell, merely wants to be able to cover Saturday’s Oregon-San Jose game—the Berry Bowl—from the Hayward Field press box. But, just as Pauline Pureheart faced the black-hearted villains—and wound up on the railroad tracks—Janet has suffered only rebuffs. Tradition says “No women in the press box.” Seemingly it would be possible for the Dean of Oregon Sportswriters and co horts to move over one space and allow the Emerald’s Janet a place in that citadel of cliche-ridden copy about Silver-haired Web foot mentor Cas and his fleet Oregon Ducks. Let her in, please fellas. How about it Dick, George, L.H.? and especially good ol’ Hal and Art and Leo? Tetters To the Editor Supports Now Code Emerald Editor: Wc, the residents of Collier Mall have followed with ex treme and understandable in tcrcst the emergence of the new Student Conduct Code. We reject the idea that abso lute control of student discip line by dormitory administra tion will prove any better than it has in the past. We firmly believe that the student court system is work able and desirable. Trial by ones peers has always been a basic process in American de mocracy. We feel strongly that the new system will be far more effec tive than the old in helping all of us become rational, respon sible and mature individuals. Michael G. Foster, President Collier Hall Editor’s Note: This letter was also signed by 50 other resi dents of Collier Hall. Their names are on file in the editor’s office. • • • Misquoted Emerald Editor: In his report of a YMCA Dia logue, which appeared in the Wednesday Emerald. Steve Green states that I “charged that football dominates the en tire athletics program at the University.” While a look at the budget of the Athletics De partment might support this, it was not what I said. 1 made no “charges” regarding this Uni versity's program but merely pointed out that, in any univer sity and emphasis upon football is a logical consequence of giv ing priority to the public rela tions value of an athletics pro gram. Robert Campbell, Department of Economics • • • Questions for Co-op Emerald Editor: This is a list of questions to be considered by all members of the Co-op: In the first place, why is it said that the Side building has to be destroyed, and who insists on this? Why should a building that has been providing over $9,000 per year in rents, be considered an unwise financial holding? Why has a student vote of 3 to 1 in favor of saving the Side been ignored by members of the Co-op board? Why has a petition in favor of saving the Side, signed by over 2700 students, likewise been ig nored by the Co-op board? Why is our architectural heri tage considered expendable when the majority of student opinion is in favor of preserva tion? How much more money would be made by tearing down the Side and erecting an new Co-op building on that site? Is it the purpose of the Co op to mam* more' money.’ The students are not con cerned t hat the Co-op profit more—they show il by their votes to save the Side Who is it thut wishes the Co op to make more money If a new building must he built, why cannot this new build ing be built elsewhere? Why not more centrally located nearer the dormitories, for example? Is it true tiiat an alternate site on University property is feared because then the Co-op organization might come under University control? And if it did. how i this con sidered not advantageous, and to what Interests would that be harmful’’ The service to the stu dents would not be less. Why is it insisted, and who insists, that the Coop building be on private property? Of what advantage is this to the stu dents? Why does the whole move ment to destroy the Side build ing seem to be motivated by economic interests when the economic stability of the Coop is assured as it is right now? Why is there so much interest that the Co-op should sell more goods, and profit more? Or is it the thought of ex panded services to the Co-op members that is the motivating factor in the move to destroy the Side? Hut the members are the Co op! Expanded services or no, they wish the Side building saved. Why are the votes and petitions of the students ig nored? Are the student's wishes truly considered of no account in this matter? Who considers the Co-op mem bers so ignorant of the values involved here that the Side building must be destroyed “for their own good”? Will it be necessary to call a special meeting of the members of the Co-op (the first in his tory) to save the Side building? Vic Sabin 1895 Columbia Kt. OREGON DAILY EMERALD Tb* Oregon Daily Kni'ttM i* pubi«*^<l twice in Sepicnltcf end b*e day* • w«-*b dunes Ike ym, during «*• ammatioo end taxation (wfi'^U by th«- Si#, dent Publication* Board at (be o| Oregon. Entered a* aeeoiul cU** waiter at the pail office. Eugene. Oregon. HaUnip lion rate* |S p«r year, 12 p«r term Opiniona nprrwol on the editorial page are tkoM of the Emerald and do oot pie* tend to represent tbe opinion of the ASL'O or the Unl«er*lty. EVERETTE DENNIS. Editor LARRY WILLIAMS, Boaine** Manager JANET COETZE, Managing Editor JIM SPEER. Advertising Manager RON COWAN. Naw* Editor DOUC HAGEN. Editorial Page Editor CATHY NEVILLE. Academic Affair* Editor DICK RICHARDSON. Aeaociale Editor JIM FKAKK, A**i*iant Managing Editor RAY MAST. Sport* Editor JOE BERGER, A*«i*tant New* Editor Editorial Board : Everefle Denni*. Ron Cow* an. Janet Coeije. Doug Ragan, Dick Richard* •on. Da»r Sand*. Jerry IJtti. Ray Meet. Pam Paahkowaki. Cathy Neville. Pat Holt. Simeon Crowther, Doug Comb*. Joe Berger. Jim Frake. I m< oF IK A4 0H,1 C^UT KNOtjJ' m oe u% Of A JOU6LO TM SKW mi cm mi.i LIFE maw & EEm mm Riptm ? mm. cuRmiM# MBUJEUOT sahwg we „ swwm? i cmAm mw. i ,, w>m THIlK TH5 4I6U0F A MATl/RP PP0AT6: I5» W«M BOTH PARTifc ARP mtfSO. AIJP id that mm am r t&xmM wim. im mmcz am i AUXKX£ eeCAUSf i FEAR THAT IM 600V POM, THAI? * 1 ftAR, « , rx?£ i am: (5 thatumt we sw ■ \? wire nmme. “I AM, THE ft F0& I FTART THAT'S IMT IM mw> oujautw amoM, iMceprwt. _ / tytoKou rm&bieu, m cm wE6.tv? w m cm awp oiscm THIS 0IIER CW2- / am rm & sevem. VITAL MtJTS i m mm cn&uxm. m mwe, M 5MVIR0U / MeWTAU 1 I IOOO) W 1 90 THAT BZAltt l m AJOXIWS OR VIO 1 90 W warn i W6 Mamie f I HOPE AttOWEfi SMALL AWIMAt CMb AM Mli / HOW El# -o ZN.CAI0 0M£ - -^7 leAPW ? /. .li
