Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 13, 1964)
The Bookstore That Isn’t A Vacant Lot Is Not a Bookstore And Lack of Planning Unexpected What was once the Willcox Building is now a concrete-covered vacant lot, suitable only for use as a parking lot. A highly effi cient crew of building wreckers needed only 10 days in which to demolish a struc ture which was the center of a campus con troversy for almost two years, a controver sy which aroused some student concern about the ethics of a progressive society, and a lot more concern about the possibility of a cut in a rebate on book costs. Once a student meeting had passed judgement and condemned the building— a judgement the Co-op Board had no re sponsibility to follow if it had been the reverse—the course was clear and the building went. Why then, students should ask. will we be blessed with a vacant lot until August, 1965, when construction of the Co-op's newest blockhouse is complete? The Co-op Board will have no idea until January of 1965 what the Willcox Building's replace ment will look like, even if an architect is selected immediately, and students have no guarantees of any kind except some vague unofficial promises that it won't look like the present annex building. Despite the uncertainty of the struggle over the Willcox structure, the Co-op Board had a responsibility to proceed with plans for a replacement for the building. The Board never offered publicly their alterna tives to the structure or discussed the diffi culties of planning one. Its contribution was limited to thinlv-veiled threats of a cut in rebates if the new building—for which they had neither plans nor specifications— was not built. Co-op Board members have similarly dis played fuzzy thinking in their rejection of a competition among architecture students for designs for a replacement. On the ad vice of a professor who denigated his own students as “too idealistic” they rejected an alternative which could have led to a building truly representative of student tastes. These are tastes which hopefully were sharpened and brought to the surface by the Willcox Building controversy, and which well deserve expression through the work of those students who will likely be designing many of the homes and buildings Oregonians will occupy and use in the fu ture. Almost casually ignoring the poten tiality of student contributions in a field in which they may be expected to have exper tise, and more importantly, fresh ideas, is, unfortunately, typical of the Board. The Co-op Board now has to justify, to those few' who can attend its meeting at 5:30 today, a highly questionable lapse in thinking, in destroying a revenue-produc ing building post-haste, with no thought to tomorrow except to be rid of an embarrass ment. The embarrassment will continue, either until reforms are made in the Board itself, or until the Board starts thinking for itself rather than waiting for spurs from outside such as the “Save the Side” petition and ASUO Senate resolution, both of which it ignored. lilliM Letters to the Editor, Why Beards? Emerald Editor: I am not trying to be face tious, but I would like to know why many of the professed civil ized intellects on campus wear beards. I don’t mean the two day fuzz that grows best dur ing finals week, but the tremen dous bushy pelt-like things. I have wondered what motivates the North Beach escapees to grow this apparently inconven ient and unsanitary shrubbery. Is it that facial fur coupled with a. shag-rug cranium con vinces the owner of his man hood? Perhaps he would be un able to choose between a skirt and pants without the aid of extraneous hair. Is it a desire for individual ity? This seems reasonable, ex cept that the Cobwebbs are just another conforming group. They even look alike. I never could tell Charles I from Ivan the Terrible. Is the expense of shaving too great? I hope not. The Co-op sells stainless steel wonders that do the job amazingly well. If shaving expense is the motive, I’m afraid all the bearded ones will be gone with the tuition hike next fall. I have often seen anemic would-be philosophers stroking their beards in contemplation in the dark recesses of the lib rary. Groups of feeble but hairy faced students talk about intel lectual values while playing bridge and drinking Boyd’s at the SU. Nevertheless, I hope that beards and beetles continue to be popular. I like nothing bet ter than walking behind a hairy growth in the summer. They catch all the gnats. Dan Tonn lunior in Physics • • * Convention for All Emerald Editor: It has come to my attention while working at the model con vention table in the SU lobby that the nature of the foregoing ( Continued on pa ye 3) iiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiwn A.SLJO Senator Font Bettes Says [nintnntitpiimm Residence Status Policy: Decisions ‘Questionable’ The question of establishment of residency and the actions of the Inter Institutional Committee in determining who is or is not a resident is the topic of Sophomore Class President Torn Bates in this column. By TOM BATES Sophomore Cliw President Subsequent to the institution of tuition increases last fall term a number of out-of-state students have attempted to establish their residency in the state of Oregon in order to be able to afford their education here. The account of one such attempt that failed was recently brought to my attention, and this account indicate* that some questionable practices, in both a legal and ethical sense, may be being used by the Inter-Institutional Committee in making their decisions on applications for resident status. Last fall a twenty-two-year-old senior from California applied to the Director of Admissions Vernon Barkhurst for resident status in this state. This senior, Bob Danielson, stated the following grounds for establishing his residency: he has made Oregon his home since September, 19<i2, and was employed last summer in Portland. He paid taxes to this state. In September, 1963 he rcgis tered to vote, and on October 15 he did vote on the tax referen dum. Thus, having voted in Oregon, he could not at present be a legal, \oting resident of California. Finally, he has been self-sup porting since he entered this university. Petition Referred to Committee Danielson’s petition was referred to the Inter-Institutional Com mittee, which is composed of the directors of admission from all state schools of higher learning. This Committee has the power, delegated to it by the State Board of Higher Education, to grant or deny requests for resident status. At an October meeting Daniel son's request was denied. After consulting University President Arthur S. Flemming. Dan ielson decided to petition again in January, and at its January meeting the Committee again denied hi* request for residency Danielson learned from Barkhurst, in the meantime, that his lirst request was denied for two reasons: First, since he lives in a frater nity house rather than an apartment there was some doubt about his intention to reside in the state after graduation. Secondly, he had spent Christmas vacation of 1962 and spring vacation of 1963 at his parents' home in California As to why his request was denied a second time, Bob learned that since he had lived during the sum mer in Portland with his aunt he had established no residence of his own in Oregon. Doesn't Conform to Legal Definition According to Barkhurst, the Committee regards the term “resi dent " in a different sense than is ordinarily given the word under state law; that is, if a person resides in Oregon merely in order to acquire an education he is not a resident for the purpose of tuition, regardless of his standing under state law. In other words, to the Committee a “resident” is a student who intends to remain in Oie gon after graduation. There is a logical inconsistency in this defini tive policy. That is, why should the Committee question the intent of out-of-state students and not, at the same time, question the intent of in state students, if “intent" is the vital factor in deter mining the amount of tuition paid. If an instate student should declare to the Committee that he has no intention whatever of re maining in Oregon after graduation, would it be reasonable for the Committee to compel him to pay out-of-state tuition? To qualify as an Oregon resident under state law there are two basic requirements. First is that of capacity or authority. Ergo, one must be of age and not be impaired by law; that is, committed as a “ward,’’ or a “soldier” or an “incompetent.” Danielson is over twenty-one years old and is self-supporting, and therefore satisfies the capacity requirement. The second requirement for residency is that of presence and intent. This requirement is satisfied beyond question by the overt acts of registration for voting, voting, cm ployment in the state, and payment of taxes to the state, all of which Danielson has accomplished in Oregon. It seems, therefore, that the Committee can, at its discretion, establish its own criteria for determining residency, or, to their way of thinking, a student’s intent to remain in Oregon after grariua tion. Three examples of such criteria are the three reasons which were given to Danielson for the denial of his residency. In Mr Barkhurst’s own words, the Committee's decision-making process is “subjective.” (Continued oil (age 3) nwniiinidifftffflffflniii m Alt KW HOU) (T IS. IP 366M MATH£ SCO)£ FOR MRAPS. PJ66IR6 UF5, S/jOIUO" IU6, 6£00\/in6, Ml THAT JAZ2- TH£ J fWDM, K vkimess scene, <y. Zi W lOOtMR I hfetir 6mu6 AnWWHEpe WITH W tW'CWti fOOl/fU I HAP TO 6CT BAOK TO BASICS. T HAP TO - fOfU, MAM6B ITSOLAHX GORM FIIOP 6OME" VAUJBS. a? r weior T0 ft/l?OP£ I AMPMAKieUWE iM? sMBTme £IA£1 VO RUSH, too RAT RACC. IV eum im KNOW MO Mu ml baled OIRLB. pbaows WITH poem iki thzip MO&C' mJ BOQIBS. $1^106 110 M MARKET aAC£. FOUUTAIVS IV TUB savsse. twz time - WDVBB1H OB F0PBI6V > PAlM. /* 6009 PAM$ lid P0IA5. 6oo9 (oe&Keum in PARIS-6609 WI6HT5 IK) Hhvm TALK THAT KJE'SUT WZh< UP TIU RWtf. RfAu talk: eur TALK. TALK ABOUT m AM IT 10. WHAT A &l IK TO HA It Ml THAT M£W WRK pm 5MV Me. '>ooA I 805110 MM BULL-'
