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