Reversing Tactics
Mr Goldnuirk’s Plan to Up wot Rightists
As Frightening As Rightists Themselves
John Goldmark is a man who knows
what harassment and intimidation means.
The former Washington state legislator
was the object of Birch Society attacks
when he sought reelection to the Washing
ton House of Representatives in 1962.
Bleating lunatic fringe voices tried to iden
tify Goldmark with the Communist Party.
But unlike so many private citizens and
public officials who have been discredited
by the far right, Goldmark fought back.
And he won. Earlier this year Goldmark
was awarded a $40,000 libel judgment
against several individuals who tried to
smear him in the 1962 campaign.
Friday night John Goldmark spoke at
the University. Unfortunately he didn’t
focus his remarks on the trial, but deli
vered a more generalized lecture on the
dangers of the radical right. We were dis
appointed that Goldmark devoted so little
of his time to the intimate human interest
details and implications of the celebrated
trial. Instead he chose to string together
the well-worn liberal cliches about ultra
conservatism. And John Goldmark is some
thing less than an authority on the organi
zation. development and operation of right
wing political action groups. Our concern
with Goldmark’s lecture however does not
lie with the hackneyed redundancies which
he uttered, but with his plan of action for
rooting out Birchers and other extremists.
Goldmark proposed the establishment of
community citizens groups for the express
purpose of exposing members of the luna
tic fringe. As a matter of fact Goldmark’s
proposal which would have citizens band
ing together to observe and study the
right’s operations would probably lead to
the same kind of activity which the far
right conducts. After all, the right wingers
thought they were doing the same thing to
“dangerous leftists’’ when they started
their attacks on Goldmark. Mr. Goldmark
and others who propose counter conspiracy
groups would do w'ell to reevaluate their
efforts and compare them to the activities
of rightist groups. Goldmarks own state
ment “I’ve seen in our country friend set
against friend and neighbor set against
neighbor” merits some thoughts in a dif
ferent light. Citizen’s counter-conspiracy
groups developed for the express purpose
of spying on the radical right could be just
as malicious and dangerous as the rightist
groups which are spying on the radical left.
Mr. Goldmark’s proposal is pretty short
sighted. If he would only recall his own
intimidation at the hands of the radical
right, he would realize how really danger
ous his plan of action really is.
Meeting of the Minds
There was a high-level “meeting of the
minds” last week when President Flem
ming met with nearly 150 so-called student
leaders to discuss “The University of Ore
gon Today and Tomorrow.” The dinner
meeting was a unique opportunity for stu
dents to express their ideas on problems
facing the campus, particularly the contro
versial student conduct code.
There has been considerable lip service
given to freedom of expression when, on
some occasions, students have felt that
there is a barrier between themselves and
University administrators and faculty mem
bers. Too often students have been reluc
tant to accept President Flemming’s “open
door” policy of seeing students without
appointments on Friday afternoons. And
the free speech platform hasn’t been the
most popular way of airing one's views.
If all else fails, a student can write a letter
to the editor. But a lot of people don’t take
letters too seriously.
The student-leader dinner seems to fill a
gap in the President’s “channels of com
munication.” It provides for a discussion
between the University’s chief administra
tor and student leaders. Psychologically, it
Footnote
An informational letter from the Office
of Institutional Research, Washington, D.C.,
this week features Oregon Chancellor Roy
Lieuallen in its “Quote of Note” column.
Chancellor Lieuallen said, “Our higher
educational system in Oregon will within
the next decade be rocked with a 70 per
cent increase in numbers of students . . .
There is no immediate solution to this
problem except to finance higher education
to meet the challenge of the future. The
problem won’t just go away if we don’t
look at it—there is no panacea, no miracle
drug or push button automation that will
enable us to educate twice the number of
students for the same amount of money ...
It may be many years before we get any
return for our investment in the education
of young people as they come along—and
as they keep coming along—but this return
will be tremendous and lasting if we do
our duty now.”
just appears easier to complain about re
cent policy decisions after munching on a
chicken dinner than in the formal atmos
phere of a carpeted office in Johnson Hall.
Perhaps the best way to a student’s heart
is through his stomach.
This interchange between the leader and
the masses is a refreshing change from the
old policy of handing down decisions with
out allowing the student body to properly
express itself. The president has already
demonstrated his willingness to work with
elected student representatives when, at
the request of the student body president,
he took steps towards correcting a hastily
made decision by another administrator.
Although President Flemming can’t be
expected to do everything he is asked by
special-interest groups, it’s vital that he
keeps as many avenues of approach as pos
sible open so he can put his policy deci
sions in their proper perspective. The pres
ident said the dialogue would set a prece
dent for future dinners. We certainly hope
so.
Council and the Cross
Alpha Phi Omega service fraternity act
ed wisely in withdrawing its request to
place a new concrete cross on Skinner’s
Butte . The bitter hassle and public debate
which followed the fraternity’s proposal
did much to mar its reputation as a service
group. It will probably be some time before
the group has a favorable image in the
Eugene community. The withdrawal of the
request takes the City Council out of the
hot seat since they need not make a final
decision on the matter at their meeting to
day.
We suppose that the City Council will
breath a sigh of relief and forget about the
whole issue. If this is the case it is unfortu
nate because the question of the use of pub
lic land for religious purposes ought to be
resolved. We can understand the Council’s
reluctance, for it certainly is not pleasant
to be on the firing line of the civil libertians
or the fundamentalists. The policy question
should be discussed and resolved. It seems
to us that this is the Council’s responsibili
ty. We hope they meet it.
Herblock
T
/Mormir-'MAj
KAktr PRejUPlCtT'
I ..
.sou r>*i kh
f WACfc PRf JUOlCfc. I
hits4/. cJJf
I -4- J
r»-ir
Hrotherhocxl
Letters to the Editor
Librarian Replies
Emerald Editor:
With reference to Mr Nar
esh R. Madhok's communica
tion in the “Letters to the Edi
tor" column of April 8, 1 wish
to make two comments:
(1) Unfortunately, we have
some immature and irresponsi
ble individuals in the Univer-,
sity community who do need to
be reminded by means of a check
that books are supposed to be
signed for before they are tak
en from the Library. Mature and
responsible individuals realize
this situation and willingly co
operate in the necessary check
ing procedure.
(2) W'e do not enjoy inspect
ing books and briefcases. How
ever, we deny this activity is
an implicit charge of the theft
It is a necessity procedure wide
ly used in libraries throughout
the world and, contrary to Mr.
Madhok’s statement, it has yield
ed results locally.
One further point—the open
access policy which gives stu
dents the privilege of using the
book collection with a minimum
of controls is squarely based on
the idea of maturity and res
ponsibility. Sometimes it seems
we are mistaken. Perhaps Mr.
Madhok would like to see some
of the periodicals and books
which have had pages cut from
them by “mature and responsi
ble individuals.”
Carl W. Hint/.,
University Librarian.
‘Red Hot Answer’
Emerald Editor:
In response to your editorial
of April 8, concerning the “Red
Hot Professor” contest, I would
like to call attention to falacies
within the article. The ob
jects of the contest were to pro
mote better relations between
the students and the faculty, to
give students a chance to give
recognition to their favorite pro
fessors, to give the faculty an
opportunity to participate in a
way that the majority of the stu
dent body would enjoy, and most
important, to raise money for
WUS week through student con
tributions.
No professor was under any
obligation to participate in the
doney basketball game and each
finalist was called and allow
ed to forego this part of his
duties. Also, we were not in
terested in getting faculty mem
bers to donate “large sums of
money in the name of opposing
candidates.” We never asked the
faculty for any money. In fact,
no faculty members were seen
voting at the polls. In addi
tion, this contest was not meant
to be taken seriously but sim
ply as a fun way to raise money
for WUS week.
In answer to your article of
April 9. the reason for only 6
finalists was not la-cause of the
professors' lack of interest be
cause the committee cut the
number down because of the
outstanding number of votes
these professors received in re
lation to the rest.
We realize that there were
weaknesses in this contest, but
that is to be expected with any
new activity It is very difficult
to involve faculty members in
student activities successfully.
In the future, when you write
up an article about a student
activity, I think it would be a
good idea if you get your in
formation from the committee in
charge of that particular activ
ity.
Judy Ann Coltstri,
Co-Chrmn. Ited Hot
Professor Contest.
• • *
Get Those Courts!
Emerald Editor:
I have spent the past four
years trying to get lights on the
tennis courts and have been
very successful in my efforts -
until I ask for money; it seems
that there is no money unless
you want to use it over a thou
sand miles aw-ay! I think that
all students realize the need for
more opportunity to play ten
nis.
Last year, the class of 1!)<>5
had a very successful financial
year. It looks as if this year
(Conlimu'd on payc 3)
OREGON DAILY EMERALD
The Oregon Daily Emerald in publiched
twice in September and five day* a week
during the academic year, except during
examination and vacation periods by the
Student Publications Hoard of the Uni
versity of Oregon. Entered as second class
matter at the post office, Eugene, Oregon.
Subscription rates $5 per year; $2 per
term.
Opinions expressed on the editorial page
are those of the Emerald and do not pre
tend to represent the opinion of the ASUO
or the University.
EVERETTB DENNIS, Editor
JIM SPEER, Business Manager
JANET GOETZE, Managing Editor
MARIE FORRESTER,
Advertising Manager
RON COWAN. News Editor
CATHY NEVILLE,
Academic Affairs Editor
DICK RICHARDSON,
Associate Editor
JIM FKAKE
Assistant Managing Editor
JO GRISWOLD, DAVE JORDAN,
Assistant News Editors
RAY MAST, Sports Editor
JOE BERGER,
Associate Managing Editor
GEORGE BIGHAM. Photo Editor
CHUCK BEGGS,
Entertainment Editor
MARY STAMP, PHYLLIS
ELVING, STEVE GRELN,
Associate News Editors
Editorial Board : Evcrette Dennis, Ron
Cowan, Janet Goettc, Doug Ragen, Dick
Richardson, Dave Sands, Jerry Utti, Ray
Mast. Pam Pashkowaki, Cathy Neville,
Pat Holt, .Simeon Crowther, Doug
Combs, Joe Berger, Jim Prake, Larry
Derr, Lynn Mascall and Tim Pennington.