OREGON DAILY EMERALD
Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of the Emerald and do not necessarily
represent the opinions of the ASUO or the University. Opinions expressed in signed columns
are those of the writer.
CHUCK BEGGS, Editor
KENNETH M. FOBES
Business Manager
JOE FRAZIER
News Editor
BOB CARL
Managing Editor
PHIL SEMAS
Associate Editor
LOUIE ABRAMSON
Advertising Manager
ALLEN BAILEY
Associate Editor
Page 10
University of Oregon, Eugene, Thursday, October 21, 1965
Insufficient Funds
People Who Write Bad Checks at the Co-op or Student Union
Should Be Prosecuted Under the Conduct Code
When a student steals a book from an
other student, he may be sanctioned by
student courts under the Student Conduct
Code. But when a student steals a book
from the Co-op Bookstore, or writes a bad
check at the Student Union, present policy
is that his case should be handled in Eu
gene courts, since the Co-op is not owned
by the University.
That would be fine if the Co-op didn’t
have very many bad checks or very many
books stolen. But last year the Co-op lost
$680 in bad checks and had a large number
of books stolen. The Student Union lost
$125 in bad checks. Most of these are checks
of small amounts and prosecuting a large
number of small checks is not practical
for either the SU or the Co-op.
The reason such cases are kept out of
student courts is a bit of rather poor logic,
which maintains that “since the Co-op is
not University-owned, it shouldn’t have re
course to the Student Conduct Program.”
A similar theory is held for the Student
Union, which is considered not part of the
University when it comes to bad checks.
This policy was set by University President
Arthur S. Flemming, not by the Student
Conduct Committee.
The whole point hinges on a section in
the “philosophy” part of the Conduct Code,
which says that when a student violates a
law in the “wider community” he should
be prosecuted by civil authorities. Since
the Co-op and Student Union are defined as
not University-related when it comes to
bad checks, they are part of the “wider
community” and must use the civil courts.
What’s wrong with this piece of logic is
that it’s stretching things to say that the
Co-op and the SU aren’t part of the Uni
versity.
This argument overlooks the fact that
the Co-op is owned entirely by students. It
seems logical to us that stealing from the
Co-op, which is owned by students, is the
same as stealing from individual students
and should be punished through the stu
dent court system.
And the Student Union is financed out of
student fees and is run. at least in part by
a student board and staff.
Both the Student Union Board and the
Co-op plan to go before the Conduct Com
mittee in the near future to request that
their cases be handled through the student
court system. We recommend that the Con
duct Committee approve their request.
$
VY 6RANM>M> 5AYS THtS 5tWfR U«t> TO Ft A RlVfcR."
iiiiiniimiiiiiiiiiii
Letters to the Editor
No Coverage
Emerald Editor:
I am shocked that the Emer
ald Wednesday gave absolutely
no coverage to the open forum
which took place on V'iet Nam
in room 150 Science following
Mr. Johnson’s speeches in the
SU. There was also no mention
of the question and answer
period immediately following
Mr. Johnson's first speech. These
items are at least as newsworthy
as his speech and, to some of
us, even more so. Again, the
Emerald has just plain failed
in one of its functions. It cer
tainly makes no attempt to
give all the campus news, but
evidently picks and chooses ac
cording to unknown criteria.
The question and answer
period following Mr. Johnson’s
speech consisted of members
of the audience writing their
questions on klips of paper pro
vided and faculty member Scott
Nobles selecting those to be
read to Mr. Johnson. Mr. John
son replied to these and the
audience sat in courteous si
lence for another 45 minutes.
There was, in reality, no com
munication between the speak
er and the University audience.
The forum sponsored by the
Faculty-Student Committee to
End the War in Viet Nam lasted
about one hour and contained
just that ingredient lacking at
the formal session—back and
forth communication. (Mr. John
son, of course, was too tiled to
attend.) After a few brief state
ments from three members of
our faculty, the Hoor was open
to the audience and the audi
ence responded’ I was surprised
to see that over UK) people from
(Continued on page 11)
PU&anJt
MM 1 1 Ri MB
We Must Look at the ‘Wider Picture’ in Viet Nam
Editor’s note: This column is
a reply to a group of three let
ters which appeared on this
page Oct. 14. The letters were
submitted by Jim O’Brien, a
graduate student in finance at
the University. The letters in
volved an exchange between
O’Brien and Lt. Col. Leon Utter
of the Second Battalion of the
Second Marines stationed in Viet
Nam.
O’Brien wrote Utter’s com
pany, complimenting them on
their “use of guerrilla warfare
tactics and public reconstruc
tion activities” in ending Viet
Cong influence and reassuring
them that all U.S. college stu
dents are not opposed to the
war in Viet Nam. O’Brien had
read about this in a news story.
Utter replied, thanking
O’Brien for the letter and told
telling how it lifted morale in
his battalion.
I read Mr. O’Brien’s com
ments with surprise and with
some disbelief at his unfortu
nate uniformed state. I think
he neglects several important as
pects of the war in Viet Nam
and the men in the war.
Incidental to this is thei unan
swerable question of the amount
of censuring done to his orig
inal “news story” source as well
as that done by the military to
Lt. Col. Utter’s letter.
Whether we like it or not, the
public is given material that ex
presses the optimum image of
“how - well - we - are - doing”
concerning the war in Viet Nam.
My main points are, first, that
having recently returned from a
two-year tour of duty in South
east Asia as a member of the
U.S. Peace Corps and having
made a special personal pro
ject of informally interviewing
a number of people on the sub
ject of the war in Viet Nam,
the articles presented are not
compatible with my personal
findings.
Wider Concept”
Second, Mr. O’Brien has fail
ed to consider the “wider con
cept” of this war in relation to
American foreign policy in
Southeast Asia.
This latter point is too com
plex to deal with in this col
umn, but I should like to note
that for the past few months a
“War of Liberation” has been
declared in the country of Thai
land by an organization similar
to the National Liberation
Front of South Viet Nam.
Currently, the U.S. has per
haps a thousand “advisors” and
troops stationed in Thailand
plus there are two or three cru
cial “SEATO” defense air-bases,
manned by U.S. and British per
sonnel and equipment. It is
a known fact in Thailand that
these bases serve as initiating
points for fighter-bomber raids
into Viet Nam, both North and
South. This has its clear impli
cations.
In Viet Nam
But to deal with the first
point. A friend and I visited
Laos and Viet Nam briefly and
spent time in Thailand. I talked
to people who expressed both
pro and con points of view con
cerning the war.
One group, the cons, were
members of the International
Voluntary Service. The other,
the pros, were G.I.’s on leave
U.S./AID officials from Laos and
Viet Nam.
Let me explain the Interna
tional Voluntary Service or
IVS. This is an organization
structured as the Peace Corps
but differing in that it is a pri
vately sponsored institution.
This means simply that its Vol
unteers may be sent into areas
where Peace Corps cannot go,
such as Viet Nam and Laos.
Currently, there are perhaps 60
to 100 Volunteers in the two
countries.
It is a proven fact, and I have
proof, that none of these Vol
unteers has ever been molested
by the Viet Cong or the Pathet
Lao, although Volunteers work
in areas under dominion by
these forces.
Special Precautions
In fact, the Viet Cong take
special precautions not to in
volve these Volunteers in any
battle or fighting that may be
taking place in a Volunteer’s
area. This is because “we know
that these Volunteers are work
ing for the good of the people,”
a quote from an article in a
newspaper put out in Viet Nam.
Briefly, an IVS Volunteer’s
role is seen as a white man who
eats, sleeps, works, talks, and
involves himself with the na
tive people. He speaks fluently
in the native language, has
technical competence in a va
riety of fields, has learned
about the culture of the area
in which he works and knows
his role, or how the people
with whom he works view him.
This is because he communi
cates to them.
His job is to help stimulate
village projects and programs
of change, of technological ben
efit, within the village struc
ture. He does not sponsor a
village project but attempts to
stimulate the villagers to spon
sor it. This takes time and
much negotiation among the
ancient, established village
leaders and institutions.' It also
takes sensitivity.
Enduring Landmark
Once a project is accomplish
ed it presents an enduring land
mark in the village's eyes, a
matter for history and legends.
Unfortunately the men of Ut
ter’s battalion cannot work in
this way. It is an irrefutable ar
gument that the Marines do not
speak fluent Vietnamese, much
less are they fluent or even
slightly versed in any of a hun
dred local dialects. It is also ir
refutable that they do not live,
eat and sleep among the villag
ers. They must have their own
mess, tents, and liquor supply.
What is true is that a big
smile, pieces of bubble gum and
bundles of cloth, and wads of
money, especially on big, white
men, do interest people in Asia.
Unfortunately, it is almost
standard now that this image,
put into uniform (of which most
people of Viet Nam are fear
ful in a colloquial way) sets the
individual up for a swift swin
dle. Giving away money, toys,
etc., to ragged-looking kids and
grownups, of which there arc
500 million in Southeast Asia
alone, excluding China, is no as
surance of loyalty.
Typical Project
A typical “reconstruction”
project of Utter's consists of
dozens of marine descending
upon a pre-selected village ear
ly one morning complete with
the latest in technological tools
and pre fab building materials
and, presto, almost overnight, a
shiny school of cemented-well
appears.
This presents a startling con
tract to the IVS way in which
dozens of natives, using cruder
implements an clover a longer
period of time, produce a small
earth and stone structure.
This is the native way. The
other is the alien way, an unin
vited way, and a resent build
ing way of ‘development’ by
meddling in the colloquial way
of life. There is no communica
tion in an alien way. There is
merely a chaotic, undisciplined
showpiece.
Perhaps I appear too strongly
in favor of the IVS method;
however, this other way of de
velopment has been tried by
the Americans for years with
out success. One is proven, one
is not.
Range of Comment
A truer picture of G.I. ac
tivity in these countries can be
more easily understood very ob
viously, I think, by examining
the intelligent “range” of com
ments of Utter’s men quoted to
us by Utter. Also, the more typi
cal image of the G.I. in Asia,
land of pleasure, is to be found
in such places as the bars of
Saigon, Bangkok and various,
more unpublicized towns, and
in such papers as the Bangkok
World.
This is of a whoring, drunken,
free-spending white man, a
“frong,” derogatory, seen fight
ing in a bar over Vietnamese
“prostitute.”
Unfortunately it is not their
fault, they have not been col
lege-trained, but are merely
the mercenaries of “Men-in-the
Pcntagon.”
They are mercenaries. Most
G.I.s are difficult to speak to in
telligently for they have been
benumbed by the incessant droc
of military life. Many are not
aware that political issues have
two sides.