Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 1, 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. CHUCK BEGGS, Editor LOUIE ABRAMSON Business Manager MAXINE ELLIOTT News Editor BOB CARL Managing Editor PHIL SEMAS Associate Editor WILBUR BISHOP, JR. Advertising Manager ALLEN BAILEY Associate Editor University of Oregon, Eugene, Tuesday, March 1, 1966 Page 6 Law School Elite? Lan Stiuients Have Indicated thi’ Student Conduct Program Is Not Good Enough to Try Them We were amazed last week when the Law School students asked the Student Conduct Committee for a delegation of authority to fry the case of a Law School student ac cused of academic dishonesty. In asking for the delegation of authority, the law students suggested that only law students are capable of hearing a case in volving their own kind. Yet we have heard law students acting as defense counsels for students from other departments praise the court system that was organized under the Student Conduct Code. And when the same students informed the Conduct Committee that a committee of Law School students had already held a hearing on the case in question—acting in a grand jury capacity'—we were further amazed at their gall in then asking for au thority to hear the case. This grand jury-type hearing was held to determine if the law students felt a case could be made against the accused. Then, after deciding that a case could be made against their fellow student, the law stu dents asked the Conduct Committee for authority to impose sanctions for the al leged violation. The student’s guilt appar ently had been determined at the pre-trial hearing. More than one law student said before and during the subsequent Student Court iiearing of the case: “Law students ought to be above suspicion. The fact that his integrity is in doubt is enough for me.” We believe that the law student’s pre trial hearing was in violation of the spirit of the Conduct Code. The hearing was not in keeping with the spirit of the Code be cause alleged Code violations, such as cheat ing. are supposed to be reported to Associ ate Dean of Students Francis B. Nickerson, who then holds a grand-jurv type hearing himself. If he determines that the com plaint should be heard in court, he refers it to the proper body. That is his job and nobody else’s. That is what he is paid for. If every school and department in the University held pre-trial hearings on alleged Code violations before referring them to the court system, Dean Nickerson could be replaced by a computer that merely schedules court hearings. Since University law students apparently have enough faith in the Code to act as defense counsels for other students ac cused of violations, we would assume they are gracious enough to submit to the same court system when a law student is the defendant. But this may not be a safe assumption, because several law students have said they are going to ask the Conduct Committee for the authority to set up a permanent tribunal to hear the cases of law students. They say that the Law School’s honor code is unique at the University and there ought to be a special court to deal with alleged violations of this system. However, as Conduct Committee Chair man Wendell Basye said last week, aca demic cheating is a Code violation, whether it is under an honor code or during a proc ured exam. We strongly urge the Conduct Commit tee to reject any suggestion that would allow law students to set up their own tribunal to hear cases concerning law stu dents. They are no better and no worse than the other students at the University, and they deserve no better and no worse than the other students. Letters to the Editor All letters to the editor must bo typewritten and double spaced. Letters not over 300 words in length and those deal ing with one subject will be giv en preference for publication. All letters must be signed in ink and must give the class and major of the writer. Letters not meeting these criteria will be returned to the letter writer. The Emerald reserves the right to edit letters for stylo, gram mar, punctuation, and potential ly libelous content. Faculty Represented? Emerald Editor: The ASUO Senate’s proposal that it should have two repre sentatives to attend and speak at all faculty meetings (Emer ald, Feb. 18), which the Em erald editorially declares “A Reasonable Proposal” (Feb. 31), does, indeed, seem only fair, particularly since the faculty is already represented, I presume, on all student bodies, such as the ASUO Senate and the Em erald editorial board. Or am 1 wrong on both counts? Kennetli W. Porter Professor, History Activities Committee Emerald Editor: As you blissfully read the following rendition, the ad ministration is gaining more control for policing your aeti vities. In the name of FREEDOM, the Student Activities Commit tee wants more dictatorial pow er. The old line — obey for freedom's sake — has been im plicitly and explicitly pro grammed in the Student Ac tivities Policy Draft. According to this memoran dum, among a multitude of oth er things, all students have been allotted the freedom to “ac cept an elective or appointive position in any extra-curricular of organization activity," only if (if is a very powerful little word, isn’t it?): • The student takes 12 term hours, or 9 term hours as a graduate student: • The student has attended the University for at least one 12 credit-hour term: • The student has a cumu lative C.PA of at least 2.00: • The student's previous term GPA was at least 2.00; • The student has not been suspended or expelled from the University; • The student is "a regular student in good standing"; (however "good standing” is interpreted.) • The student “has obtain ed a certificate of eligibility.” These are fine upstanding “if’s” from the controller's point of view I assert, that the student should be allowed the freedom of choice and indivi dual responsibility. Why must a student attend the University for a term be fore he or she is allowed the freedom to accept an elective or appointive position’’ One is either enrolled or not enrolled Why set the arbitrary 12 hour limitation? Since the student is respon sible for his GPA, the student should be granted the freedom to analyze and choose his course of action One does not dictate intellectual growth. By the way, no restrictions have been placed on student group or organization faculty advisors. Student A c tivities Committee's new name could be Student Union Control Korn mittee. I.ou Sinnlgcr Junior, Anthropology • » • Socialism Needed Emerald Editor: Since 1902, one million South Vietnamese soldiers have de serted the Saigon governments. According to reports, it was stated that "these soldiers did not go over to the Viet Cong, they just went home ." The ques tion is, how many of these sol diers turned in their weapons to the Saigon government be fore they went home? The enemy is all over the cities and countryside and not even confined to .South Viet Nam. The fighting could extend to all Southeast Asia; it's al ready lapping over into Laos and Cambodia while pressures mount in port of Thailand. Poli tically within South Viet Nam the Saigon Government is only at the “beginning of a begin ning" in mobilizing popular support, according to the Wall Street Journal, January 18. During the four day Lunar New Year Holiday, Saigon pro paganda leaflets were to be dropped by the millions over territory controlled by the Viet Cong, (l) to encourage deser tion in the communist ranks, (2) to stimulate confidence in the government, and (3) to under mine enemy morale. “You have a choice" the leaflets say, ' re turn to the government or die . . . make your choice now." (N Y. Times, Jan. 18) In this country demonstrators against U.S. policy in Viet Nam and draft card burners are (Continued on page 7) Oregon Daily Emerald Rande Wilrnarth, Sj.ort* Editor Nonri Bormatein, A*»t*tant Miinigtni E4ilnr I-arry l.an^r, AuiM^nt New* Editor David Duller, Feature Editor David Brown, Religion* New* Editor Simla Ufthio, i'lioto Editor Steve Dimco, Entertainment Editor Editorial Board: ( limit Bcgga, Bob Carl, Maxine Elliott, Phil Serna*. All»-n B.iiJry, Pam Bladine, Orw Sokol *kt, Nonii Borenatein, Scott Bartlett, Vanct Wrlty, Robin Tuttle, Dob Holme*. Jules Feiffer DUMB IIIHIHIIIIDIIIIIIIIIIIWMWDWWDI COOL9 w tom Wc A , m % r fdAJOT Yoo r<? KNOU) I 6LAMJ; MV5ELP FOR VOOR PUGHt MISTEGL IHgEPA flUTO? , BAP T6&1 HOM6 OM. smri X SHOOU? 7 &€X SO x BtAMPIV (*) mis V \ aFFiueuce, U NflfcR cMm HOW MAUy Or you wmour 'iwe\ mister cooup VOU Wfitf A quar-i iW VPIVK.I & vmct. mwrtc* mm! mr/aemw HAGMf KINP _ cm&9 wo? PUBLIC FANFARE? CRUSHED , HOR?S( VC ULTIMATE £?«TRAYAl. LOOK you wee m a QVM'eR TO CALL MV KPS OUT Of TO'M. KWioMoFiiFe ' ■ w i FAMILY? r t HARaV KMtti m m. papfiuts m awp r uve WITH TO wmuv ■ m but ?\Vjb A FML60 01 HOW ffip ee 6Alfo IF W£ C0UL9 &mKo> mei s M6T0?, COULP x me me vm atol BACK* i OW (v wemj U)HAT A ln/ONPflTO 10 wave m poor iw ~m mew PROtt AM.
