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-'