Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 25, 1965)
OREGON DAILY EMERALD Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of the Emerald and do not necessai il\ 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 MAXINE ELLIOTT News Editor BOB CARL Managing Editor PHIL SEMAS Associate Editor LOUIE ABRAMSON Advertising Manager ALLEN BAILEY Associate Editor Page 6 University of Oregon, Eugene, Monday, October 25, 1965 Why We Endorse In tomorrow’s Emerald we will endorse candidates for the ASUO spring term elec tions. And we’re sure that there’ll be the usual objections by some people about those endorsements. In past years many have questioned our right to endorse and many more have wondered why we endorse. It has been said that as the only news paper in the University community, it is our duty to present both sides and that therefore we shouldn't endorse one candi date over another. That argument, of course, can be extend ed to conclude that we shouldn’t take stands on anything. We feel that not to present our viewpoint would be to vacate our responsibility as a newspaper, monopo ly or not. Most American newspapers are monopoly newspapers. But that doesn't stop them from taking editorial stands and endorsing candidates. We also make an effort to present both sides. We always allow candidates to have platform statements printed in the Emer ald. And our letters columns are always open to any student who wishes to endorse any candidate, and to the candidates them selves. Another argument usually advanced, es pecially in the fall, is that our endorse ments carry more weight than they should with the freshman voters. Freshmen, it is reasoned, haven’t been in the University long enough to be able to make voting deci sions and take the Emerald's word on whom to vote for. We are not, of course, the only group that endorses candidates. Until it disbanded last week, the Off-Campus Council always endorsed candidates. This fall the Univer sity’s Young Republican group will en dorse. And endorsement by individuals is common. We often see the names of stu dent leaders, who criticize us for endorsing candidates, listed on posters and signs back ing some candidate. But we would be the last to dispute that the Emerald’s endorsements carry more weight, since we’ve been doing it for a long time and our endorsements receive wider circulation than those of others. If we may indulge in a moment of self praise, that’s the way we think it should be. We doubt if there’s a campus group better qualified to endorse candidates than our editorial board. We have representatives of almost all groups, in addition to our editors, whose job it is to keep on top of campus news. In other words, we think these peo ple have a better understanding of campus issues than any other group here. If freshmen are going to base their votes strictly on somebody’s endorsements (and we doubt if they do), we’d rather have them listen to our editorial board than anybody else. We feel that endorsements are a ser vice, that we are presenting the views of experts on campus issues in order to have a better-informed electorate. And so we will continue to endorse, be cause we feel it is our responsibility. /Vw >(_■&»!» ■» IT5 NOT THE DANGER, MAN —IT'S T HI HAIRCUT. Letters to the Editor No Right to Water Fight Emerald Editor: I have observed the campaign of Mr. Fred Long for water fight rights (and senator at large) with displeasure. It seems a wave of emotional furor has been developing amongst the campus (! reek s over recent Emerald editorials. Heroicly, Mr. Long has decided to place his hastily-constructed water fight platform at the crest of this wave, and ride it to an election victory. Mr Long seems to think that the Emerald editorial stafT has no facts to hack up its recent accusations that certain Greek organizations have been violat ing the Student Conduct Code. If the Emerald has no such facts, allow me to contribute a few: About a week ago, while driv Two Views of the Viet Nam Demonstrations Protests May Lengthen the War Editor’s Note: Scott Bartlett is a former college editor now a University student. In this column he comments on the Viet Nam demonstrations held last weekend. By SCOTT BABTLETT Very few individuals could fail to be moved by the often sense less carnage that has been characteristic of the war in Viet Nam. The attempts to malign the protest movement with the indis criminate brand of “Communist” must be considered unfortunate because they obscure the issues and strive to make illegitimate an irrefutably legitimate exercise of the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. Further, the decision of the Utah draft boards to “take a hard look” at any student draft deferments given to anti-Viet Nam demonstrators clearly shows their blatent disrespect for this freedom. Still, no one could conceivably say that the most recent protests were representative of the public or university majority. Hardly. Judging numerically, including Berkeley and Ann Arbor, and from the co-existent and equally vehement counter-protestants, the protests represented a decided, but vocal, minority, while mis representing the majority. Tass’s printing that “the mass action of Americans against the United States aggression in Viet Nam seems to have seriously worried official Washington,” is a simple distortion of overall American sentiment. Hanoi Misled Far more seriously, as James Reston has pointed out, Communist officials in Hanoi have been led to feel that anti-war demonstra tions in the US. will force a vacillating Johnson to withdraw American forces. Reston points out also that Hanoi may draw a parallel between the current crisis and the French conflict during the early 1950’s. Ho Chi Minh and other leaders were encouraged by the internal anti-war opposition within France, and this Hanoi propaganda victory led to the French defeats from 1950 to 1953 and ultimately to the Dien Bien Phu disaster. Unmoving Yet, the possibilities of Johnson’s pulling out of Viet Nam as a result of internal pressure are non-existent. His April speech at Johns Hopkins, the lack of any affect on policy caused by the teach-ins, the military acceleration, and this week’s expressed con tempt for the lack of wisdom in the Viet Nam protests, hardly portray a vacillating figure. (Continued on page 7) A Viet Nam Protester Writes to the President Editor’s Note: The following is a letter written by Mary Hamilton, a resident assistant in psychology at the University, to President Johnson concerning the Oct. 16 17 demonstrations against the war in Viet Nam. President Johnson: Last Saturday I participated in a protest demonstration against your policies in Viet Nam. There at Salem, Oregon, I saw the faces of those who support you. I heard them “catcall” former Congress man Charles Porter, and I watched them as they tried to shout down our speakers, and us, with cries of “Treason!”—“Drop the bomb!”—“A million troops in Viet Nam!” and "Hooray, hooray for the U S A !” I saw, too, the hatred that these people felt towards me and my colleagues because we exercised our rights of free speech and free assembly. I saw, too, the signs of the Y.A.F. (Young Americans for Freedom) and those of the Young Republi cans—the very groups who vehemently opposed your election while I and others like me were working hard for your defeat of Goldwater and everything he stood for. Today I learned that you, too, feel that some kind of “treason,” of “exploitation by Communists,” or of “misunderstanding” moti vates me and others who oppose you. You have aligned yourself with those who fought your election and you have betrayed the vote that others like myself once gave you. You will never have that vote again. If I cannot vote my objections to my country’s actions; if I must face cries of “treason” and “Communist” when I speak to ratify my conscience with and by my behavior; if I must fear violence from my fellows and investigation by my country’s judiciary bodies because I utilize my right to dissent, then I am not free. And, then too, I must mourn the loss of my own freedom as much as I mourn the loss of freedom and self-determination being suffered by the Vietnamese people by the dictates of my country. I tell you now, Mr. Johnson, I am no traitor. I am no Communist nor Communist “dupe.” I am, however, an American who fears very much for her country and the world. I do not want it said of me in twenty years (as it is now said of the “silent German”) that I failed to oppose my country as it carried out crimes against humanity or that I did not speak out against the fascist elements which grew stronger in the name of necessary “patriotism.” Twenty years ago, Adolf Hitler talked of the “iiftcrnational Jewish conspiracy.” His people remained silent while the “Hitler Youth” suppressed all opposition to the Nazi goals and while the S.S. perpetrated their gross crimes against mankind. Today, it is (Continued on page 7) inn home from the university, I had the misfortune to pass a fraternity house where a water fight was in progress. I should have kept my windows rolled up. Weaving my way through about six or eight rowdies, try ing to keep from hitting them, I was suddenly and deliberately struck in the face with a blast from a water compressor. Under any other circumstances I might have laughed this off. Under these circumstances I temporar ily lost control of my car and swerved to tin- side of the road. A car traveling behind me al most hit the rowdies and al most rear-ended me. The words I use to describe this incident are much better chosen than those I used at its occurrence. If Mr. Long thinks this is an isolated instance, it is not. Greeks, with whom I have spoken, have testified to the fact that other fraternity houses have been the sources of water balloons tossed indiscriminately at passing automobiles. If someone were now to men tion the word "Greek” to me, I could not possibly envision water fighters in the company of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. The Emerald is entirely right: the 1FC has simply got to do something to improve the image of Greek organizations. In closing, a word of advice for student voters: A vote for a candidate who campaigns seri ously on a platform of water fight rights is not a vote. It is a water balloon tossed at the Student Senate. As for Mr. Long, I sincerely hope he is headed for a wipeout. R. Gaines Smith Junior, Journalism-English * * * Squirming Finer a h) Editor: O.K.—We give up. Here is the letter you have been fishing for with the editorials on Iho Greeks and the lovely front page articles on how we are all dy ing. Ask the I.M. program how dead we are, looking at the grades, ad infinitum. If you want to see some squirming from the Greeks, I’m doing by best, but after three years of the same old story it’s getting darn hard to make it look convincing. Therefore, consider us squirmed. Yours on behalf of a student body that usually manages to take the Emerald or leave it. Fred Ehlers Jr., Itusincss Admin. Oregon Daily Emerald Connie Halverson, Assistant Advertising Manager Rande Wijmarth, Sports Editor Vivian Wilson, Assistant Managing Editor Larry Lange, Assistant News Editor Ralph Krurndieck, Associate News Editor Dave Butler, Feature Editor