Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 19, 1966)
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. LOUIE ABRAMSON Business Manager MAXINE ELLIOTT News Editor CHUCK BEGGS, Editor BOB CARL Managing Editor PHIL SEMAS Associate Editor WILBUR BISHOP, JR. Advertising Manager ALLEN BAILEY Associate Editor Page 6 University of Oregon. Eugene. Wednesday. January 19. 1966 On Taking Stands Arguments the if tlx Semite Should Avoid Nott-Cuimpus Issues Ate Off Base Should the ASUO Senate take stands on non-campus issues? We thought that question was answered last term when the Senate passed a bill that said it would instruct University delegates to the National Student Association con gress on how they should vote on certain major issues. Example: the Viet Nam conflict. This question is certain to come up this summer at the NSA congress. Some people were un happy with University delegates who voted for an NSA-passed resolution calling for a cease-fire and negotiations in Viet Nam. They said this didn't represent the majority of student opinion on this campus. The Senate thought that, as the most rep resentative student group at the University, it could stop this criticism by instructing the delegates on how to vote. That meant, of course, that the Senate would have to take stands on issues like Viet Nam and civil rights. Senate Public Affairs Committee Chair man Henry Drummonds talked to the lead ers of various campus political groups about the idea. Some were dubious. Each side feared that the Senate would take the other side's position. But finally they all agreed, the Young Democrats no less than any of the others, that it was worth a try. They also said they would provide ideas for the Senate to use in forming its policy state ments. Thus it came as a complete surprise to the Senate and the other groups Monday when YD's Bill Muir and John McKenzie objected to the Senate's desire to take stands on non-campus issues. The two YD’s offered two reasons why the Senate shouldn’t take stands on issues like Viet Nam. First, they objected that, since only from 20 to 25 per cent of the students vote in campus elections, the Senate can hardly be called representative of student opinion. The Senate does represent the opinions of all the students who care to be represent ed. The Senate is recognized by the Univer sity administration, by NSA, and by other off-campus groups as the representative of University students. If a student wants his opinion to help shape that representation, then he should vote in ASUO elections. If he doesn't, then he’s forfeited his right to choose who shapes the representation of his view. It works the same way in any re publican form of government. Only G0-70 per cent of the people vote for President of the United States but that makes him no less this country’s representative. The YD’s other point was that the present senators never ran on these issues and thus cannot take a stand that represents student opinion. That’s true. But before Senate candidates can be expected to run on these issues, they must be issues which the Senate plans to consider. That part has been accomplished. Starting with this winter’s election, Senate candidates will have to know something about issues like Viet Nam. If nobody else asks them about it. our editorial board will. Besides, senators can’t always be expect ed to run on the issues they vote on. When most of the present Senate was elected, they’d never heard of the Mosser plan. Yet nobody complained about the Senate taking a stand on that issue. Many of the people who are objecting to the Senate’s ability to represent students on this kind of issue are the same people who complain about the ineffectivenes of student government. They’re the same peo ple who say that students don’t care about student government. Yet they are opposed to the one thing that could get students interested in the ASUO. If the Senate starts talking about issues like Viet Nam, issues that undeniably inter est almost all students, then students will become interested in what the Senate is do ing. If students get interested in that much, it may be possible to transfer some of that interest over to on-campus projects. Two Changes for the Assembly Another in a series of Oregon Assemblies was held last Friday at the Country Squire Motel, this time on the topic of “Individual Freedom.” Patterned after the American Assembly and Northwest Assembly, confer ences of a larger scope, the local program provides an outlet for serious contempla tion and discussion of modern problems between faculty, students, administrators and persons from the outside community. The Oregon Assembly is a unique, valu able program and deserves continuing sup port. We have only two comments on the most recent conference. The base of partici pation should be broadened to include more persons from the local community outside the University and persons of broader view points within the campus. Some of this ef fort is taking place, but not yet enough. Secondly, the topic of “Individual Free dom” was much too broad and general for meaningful discussion. Contemporary prob lems cannot be reduced to limited concerns, of course, but topics that include virtually the total spectrum of human activity do not lend themselves to good, clear discussion. If the Assembly program is to be meaning ful it is necessary that the participants be able to identify the specific problems with which they are dealing. Drinking 101 A Harvard professor has suggested that public schools offer classes in “Social Drink ing,” beginning in elementary school and {continuing through college. The course work would apparently get more potent as grade level increased. The possibilities for the course would be limitless. But we wonder who could stay sober enough to grade the students? The ‘Peace Offensive’: Another View Editor’s Note: Many students and faculty members who have objected to the war in Viet Nam in the past sent a telegram to President Johnson last week endorsing his “peace offensive.’’ But another group of faculty and atudent# have rained Home questions about the “peace offensive.” In this letter they elaborate on those objections. Emerald Editor: We the undersigned, while strongly opposing the war in Viet Nam, have been unable to sign telegrams congratulating President Johnson on his bombing pause and "peace proposals To approve the cessation of bombing of half of Viet Nam is one thing. Hut to praise it, without further protest, violates basic values. How dare the United States bomb this people in the first place? What of the relentless continuing bombing of Vietnamese south of the 17th parallel? While crying ‘ Peace!’’, moreover, the United States is landing thousands more troops, attacking Cambodia and Laos, and plotting aggression in Thailand. It is unlikely that North Viet Nam could respond to such "pence offensives" unless it was already planning surrender. In spite of its verbal oiler of self determination for South Viet Nam, the United States refuses to recognize or even negotiate with the National Liberation Front. Yet the Front's claim that It governs at least nine million of South Viet Nam s 14.8 million inhabitants has long been accepted by independent observers (see, eg.. Georges ChafTord, L’Expresg, April 25, 1903). Indeed, the National Liberation Front provides today the only viable govern ment in South Viet Nam Realistic peace proposals must accept the inevitability of a leading role for the Front in any future government The National Liberation Front itself proposed last July a cease-fire followed by internationally supervised district by district elections of a coalition government (Robert S. Browne, New York Times, July 22, 1W15). Our government, however, in spite of its talk of “free elections,” in fact still refuses even such moder ate proposals. The United States fights in Viet Nam illegally, violating the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Agreements, and the American constitution. We believe a just peace demands that the Unite*! States agree to withdraw its forces, leaving the Vietnamese to decide their own future. The proper role of the t'r.ited States in negotiations concerns the timing of withdrawal of American troops and their protection during the period of withdrawal David F. Aberle, Kathleen G. Aberle, Jerry Paul Simpson, Linda Walters, Natalie Fisher, Laura Bock, Mary It. Hamilton, Vivian Moser, Rodney M. Ilarpster, Philip M. Brandt, Roland I-. Franz, Charlotte ,\. Thompson, Robert Thompson, Brandyn Fridman, Lee Feldman, Glen Blnford, Harold B. Barclay, Don Cogel, Katherine Jorgensen, David R. Fisher, Daniel F. Marston. Barry II. Barlow, Stephen D. Arnold, Elisabeth G. Arnold. Margaret Pearl, Gary Harrow Coover, Dee Grace Coover, Jerry F. Medler, Robert C. Holmes, Donna L. Holmes, Louis M. Slnnlger, Merrie Kay Sinnlger, Martin Acker, Joan Acker, Richard Reed, Jr., Alison Cadbury, Gretchen Milhaupt, Steven Simmons, Susan Peters, Barbara Bell, Dean C. Taylor, Virginia Staples, Kenneth A. Kastn.-r. Letters to the Editor N.A.I.V.E. Crisis Emerald Editor: I am herein reporting on the seven hour meeting held last Fri day the seventh by the National Association for Inhibiting Vio lence Everywhere, to deal with the life-death situation that Pres ident Johnson has caused. As some of you undoubtedly know, the association was form ed last spring primarily to stop the war in Viet Nam. The main demands of the group, i.e., the only ones everyone has agreed on, have been that the U.S stop the bombing of North Viet Nam and negotiate an end to the war And now, to quote a co - ed member: "Johnson has been fiendishly clever, he has stopped the bombing and launched a peace campaign which have si lenced his opposition and tak en away our cause." While many members fell this way and were worried al>out the possible dissolution of the or ganization, others said that our light was not over yet; Johnson may resume the bombing One embittered youth went so far as to say, "That link Johnson's campaign is one big fraud' We should tell the public so and show him that he has not fool ed us!” Finally Professor Abal, a most respected member, arose (Continued on p<ujt 7) /VW-nJCs-'N-i THEY fAE I NM6HT WE UP SINGING"
