Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 7, 1965)
New Housing Regulations The Office of Student Affairs has in formed some 458 University students that they are living in unapproved housing. In an attempt to enforce an old regulation, the students have been informed that they have until next fall term to either move or have their landlords do something about getting their premises on the approved list. This regulation is a clear infringement of liberty of the students living off-campus in the abrogation of their rights to choose where they wish to reside. Of course cer tain rights are always surrendered when one enters a given communal society, under the premise of protecting the individual from harsh and unjust treatment. But this ruling oversteps the bounds of protection and imposes a penalty not on the apartment landlord alone but also on the student. The ruling is a basis for long and contin ued difficulties. Administrative problems will be endless. The University has no idea where a student is living until he has com pleted registration. A student that moves into an unapproved unit prior to registra tion will not be discovered until his ad dress can be checked, at which time he will be told he cannot attend school and continue living in the unapproved dwelling. Of course if he is married or 21 or lives with relative in Eugene he is excepted from the rule. These items will have to be checked also. Registration will be delayed. The landlords must sign a non-discrimi nation pledge and submit to an inspection by county health and safety officials in or der to be placed on the approved list. It is idealistic to assume that all discrimination will be brought to a halt by invoking writ ten pledges from proprietors. And it is un likely that the dwellings of all students now pass all safety and health regulations re quired by the local government. Discrimi nation by race, religion or creed is illegal and cases are dealt with by the Oregon State Board of Labor, Civil Rights Division. The student has avenues of recourse through this agency; the University ruling in this area is repetitive and unjust by deny ing enrollment to the student not in ap proved housing. The University has attempted to move away from the sheltering “in loco parentis” concept of government through the student oriented conduct program. The philosophy of the program assumes that the student will develop judgment and maturity neces sary to become a responsible citizen. Such edicts as the housing regulation assume that the student is not able to determine criteria of a reasonable choice of residence. Instead of offering suggestions through the approved housing lists the student is given a command. Another problem can be foreseen by sim ple logic. Given a not improbable situation, 3000 studentS'could be given a choice of 2500 approved off-campus units. The sur plus of 500 is offered a choice. The leftover students could live in dormitories, w’hich are filled to the brim each fall term. They could live in Greek houses, financially not feasible for many, or in co-ops. which offer only limited openings. Or they could not at- - tend school. Students under 21 must get permission from their parents to live off-campus unless they are married or live with relatives in Eugene. The permission card does not now require listing the intended residences. If the proposed dwellings must be listed, which the administration has offered as a possibility, problems will arise for the stu dent w'ho does not rent a unit before his parents sign the card. The new regulation does not fall under the Student Conduct Code now' and unless it is incorporated into the code by next year, the student is offered no avenue of appeal. We feel the regulation is destined to create problems that do not now occur and will only aggravate minor situations of discriminatory policy that do exist at the present time. The administrative ruling should be reconsidered in light of these circumstances. Rotating Meetings No Solution The first ASUO Senate meeting of this term will be held in Dyment Hall, a fresh man men’s dormitory. Plans voiced in the last Senate* meeting of fall term indicate that if the meeting proves “worthwhile” future meetings will be rotated among other “interested” living organizations. This plan is a faulty one, and should be rejected when it comes up for re-considera tion in the Senate. The idea of “rotating meetings” came up when the men of Dyment voted to extend an invitation on the Senate to hold a meet ing in the dormitory dining room. Meetings are customarily held in room 101 of the Student Union, opposite the Post Office. Backers of the proposal said it was desir able because it would bring Senate mem bers into closer contact with the students they represent, and it would give more stu dents a chance to see the Senate in opera tion. It would be fine if a way could be found to interest and involve more students in their government. But this is not the way to do it. Senate meetings are supposedly business meetings in which Senators deal with weighty problems, but anyone who has attended a dorm meeting knows how pro ceedings can deteriorate when irresponsi ble and uninterested elements are present. The bill passed by the Senate says, “Few students take the time or have the oppor tunity to witness a meeting . . .” Senate meetings are publicized prior to the meet ting time, and the room number in which they are held is posted in the Student Un ion. A person who seriously wishes to at tend a meeting can do so easily. Persons who would “take the time” to witness a Senate meeting merely because it is a novel ty are not likely to gain much; and the Senate is not likely to profit by their atten dance. The ASUO Senate is a legislative body, not a circus. Attendance at Senate meetings by the members themselves was not the best dur ing fall term. One meeting even had to be adjourned due to lack of a quorum. And if the members must keep track of a schedule in order to know where the meeting is to be held each week, attendance is likely to be worse. Another consideration, laughable as it may sound, should be the dignity of the Senate. An example of such a consideration may be seen in action taken, or rather not taken, by the Eugene City Council during the recent dispute over the cross on Skin ner’s Butte. The council refused to move from its regular chambers for the meeting in which the cross was to come up for dis cussion, even though they knew a huge crowd was sure to be prerent. The council members knew the kind of atmosphere which was likely to be generated by the topic at hand, and they realized the value of the dignity and stability lent to the council’s proceedings by the existence and maintenance of of a regular meeting place. Although closer contact between Sena- ' tors and constituents is a laudable goal, the j rotation of Senate meetings is not a satis factory means of achieving it. Likewise, any student who would seriously like to see the Senate in operation can do so easily under the present system. The Senate , should vote down the “rotating meeting” 1 proposal when it comes up for re-considera tion. i *>«frf+-lELK “We Ought To Get Some Idea F'rom The Cast” Publish or Perish: Professor s Dilemma Bv JACK APSPITZ and ROBERT HOROWITZ The Harvard Crimson Collegiate Press Service Two hundred Harvard stu dents staged an angry rally re cently to protest the dismissal of several popular young in structors. The instructors were asked to leave the University for fail ing to meet departmental re quirements of scholarly publi cation The controversy swirls around four teachers in the History of Religions Department who have published little. Wrote Nothing One, an assistant professor, taught a popular course in early Christianity, but wrote nothing. On mild days, he habit ually shepherded his class to a small mountain for his lecture Departmental officials charg ed that the lectures were given in an unscholarly manner and amounted to little more than sermonizing. The faculty was also concerned about the pro fessor’s dubious parentage. When questioned, the profes sor said only, “They know not what they do.” Another instructor, a beard ed expert in Jewish theology, hos composed only ten sentenc es while at the University Even these, the department charges, were written by someone else. Fhe instructor has been passed aver for promotion several times. 95 Theses The faculty also dismissed one if the department's more pro lific members, whose work in cludes 95 theses. The depart ment had complained that nail ng theses to the instructor's iffice door did not constitute an icceptable mode of scholarly mblication. The final case in the religions lepartment involves an instruc ,or in oriental studies who ;pent much of his time sitting ander a tree with his feet cross ed, contemplating Holyoke Cen ;er. “I have no desire for pro motion. In fact, I have no de ;ire,” students quoted him as ;aying. His department charged ‘lack of initiative.” The controversy threatens to viden when the faculty takes ip other cases next week. In ;ome instances, failure to pub ish is coupled with other eriti :isms. Classics Teacher An instructor in the Classics department, for example, well mown for his course in the his ory of the Trojan War, has >een charged with ‘‘lack of vis on.” The most scandalous case, lowever, involves an instructor in Greek philosophy He is accused of copying all his pub lished works, word for word, from casual comments made by a senior professor at cocktail parties. This instructor is also sus pected of being a monarchist He allegedly planned an abortive coup in which members of the philosophy department sought to rule the t niversily. Some students also hint that he in vited the very youngest boys in his section to ‘‘wild parties.” One instructor of medieval theology, however, has been jumped to full professor He re cently completed a treatise of some 50 volumes on matters of the highest theological value No senior faculty member has yet read the work, but all are great ly impressed by its table of contents and the cute review it received in the Crimson. LETTER POLICY All letters to the editor must be signed and must include the student's major and year in srhool. Letters from persons other than students must in clude the writer’s address. I n der ordinary conditions, no an onymous letters will be publish ed. Letters will be run as room is available. Letters under 300 words in length will be given priority for publication. If letters are sign ed by more than five persons only the first five names will be printed. The remaining signa tures will be on file in the Kin erald office. The Emerald reserves the right to cut, edit, or not to use any letters which it receives. Letters become the property of the Emerald and will be returned to the writer only upon request. OREGON DAILY EMERALD The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub lithe*! five time* in September and five day* a week during the academic year, ex cept dtirmg examination periods, by the Student Publication* Hoard of the Univer sity 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 represent the opinion* of the ASUO or tlic University. Cathy Neville, Editor J. Craig Mathie.en. Hu sines* Manager Chuck Begg*, Managing Editor Kenneth R. Kappel, Advertising Manager Stephen Green, News Editor Dave Jordan, Associate Editor Phil Sernas, Sports Editor Phyllis Riving, Associate News Editor Joe Frazier, Rich Itabow, Assistant News Editors Irma Dawn Mo«r, Associate Managing Editor Bob Carl, Assistant Managing Editor Nancy (,'ollins, Eutcrtainrncut Editor Bob Denniston and Bruce McCurtain, Co*Photo Editors Mary Stamp, Feature Editor
