Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 6, 1966)
Two Cartoonists Look at Today’s Rally AND »F You Are a M*CE UTTUE MAVE-NOT' $M£ pay you cH?t»o up to ee A 'HAmE' youJfSEtP. &ET tT? FACULT/ A VM£ miry let's see ...there's the ,ANTI - ANTI - VIGIL - VIGIL, VIGIL ~ ANTI ... i think. 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 LARRY LANGE News Editor BOB CARL Managing Editor PHIL SEMAS Associate Editor WILBUR BISHOP, JR. Advertising Manager MAXINE ELLIOTT Associate Editor Page 6 University of Oregon, Eugene, Wednesday, April 6, 1966 Students Should Attend The cause of the students stands to benefit greatly if there is a good turnout at the rally planned today in front of the Student Union. Speakers at the affair pro pose to discuss issues concerning how much voice students should have in the running of the University, an attempt to show the faculty that students do have something worthwhile to offer in the realm of aca demic discussions. There has been a great deal of talk re cently about student involvement in the governing processes of higher education. Some deeply committed spokesmen have voiced the principles which we believe to be foremost: that students have a right to contribute to discussions of curriculum, discipline, and academic regulations. A small group of dedicated persons has been working for several months on the ideas that will be expounded in today’s meeting. Specific proposals will be delineated, ideas, that if implemented, will affect the entire student body. We are witnessing a sort of revolution in student thinking. For the first time college men and women are becoming directly con cerned with the philosophies that underlie their education, and are demanding to con tribute something to that total philosophy. Thus far we have gained little. The faculty has refused to open its meetings to anyone, preferring instead to discuss matters of importance to everyone in the educational community behind closed doors. It is this barrier that must be attacked first. And the attack must convince a majority of faculty members that enough students are interested in reforms and changes to make it worthwhile discussing them. The rally today may be a starting point. Flemming Clarifies We’re delighted that President Flemming has clarified his position on student fee budgets. We interpreted a statement of his last term to mean that four agencies which use student fees for part of their income—the Athletic Department, Health Service, Stu dent Union and Educational Activities bud get, and the towel and gym suit fee—to mean that these agencies would still have to balance their budgets based on a set amount of fees per student. But the president clarified this week that he also intends for these agencies to submit additional requests beyond their budget. This is good. It makes sense, since Presi dent Flemming says he wants to get away from the set fee allotment system. It makes his intentions much clearer. Letters to the Editor Senate Request Emerald Editor: This letter is intended for those faculty members who feel threatened by the motion cur rently placed on the faculty agenda by the ASUO Senate, and those students who don't understand clearly what we are asking for. Many schools across the coun try have open faculty meetings Of the colleges in Oregon, a majority, including Oregon State, have completely open fac ulty meetings. Any student is free to come and listen to the discussion. The University has completely closed faculty meet ings. But the Senate is not even asking for anything as radical as opening the meetings to the public. Henry Drummonds' bill, approved unanimously by the Senate, only asks that two stu dents, the student body presi dent and one other, be allowed to attend faculty meetings and present student opinion I think the core of the bill is pretty much summed up in the following few lines from the bill: "Students have an impor tant stake in education The things that affect students most are often decided in general faculty meetings. Students have a point of view and it deserves to be heard.” Just recently the faculty de cided to extend the drop date. This was an issue which the ASUO curriculum committee had been considering for some time. Thus we had an issue which directly concerned stu dents and to which students had given some thought. They should have been represented. Other similar proposals will be coming before the faculty such as non graded P.E. classes and the use of more five hour and fewer three hour classes. These ideas are being pushed by the stu dents and they should have two representatives at the faculty meetings to present their case. The Conduct Code is another area of student concern. The Code is divided into three parts. One part is under President Flemming’s control. One part is under the Conduct Committee’s control. The third part is under the control of the faculty. Any student can present his case for a Code revision directly • to either President Flemming or the Conduct Committee. In ad dition, three students sit as vot ing members of the Conduct Committee But there is no op portunity for any student to pre sent a student view to the fac ulty except by trying to contact each one individually. In summary, it was not the intent of Henry Drummonds in writing the bill nor of the Sen ate in approving it to ask for anything more than an oppor tunity to be heard We think this is a reasonable request. Jim Beat Chairman of Committees A8UO Senate • • • Loaded Letter Emerald Editor: We have just read Bill Camp’s “Open Letter to Jim Hill” and we find his method of argu ment much more disturbing than the position taken by Mr. Hill. We have known Jim since last fall, and although we dis agree with him on most politi cal issues (including civil rights), we have never known him to resort to the ad homi nem, smear-type technique used by Camp in his letter. It is rela tively easy to cloud the issue through use of analogy and emo tionally loaded language. It is quite another to debate the real merits of the question. There may be some truth in what Camp says but his efforts fall on deaf ears when they are crouched in the kinds of lan guage he used in his letter to llill. George Austin Graduate, Speech JoAnn Johnson Senior, English Bill Lawrence Senior, Speech Oregon Daily Emerald Ramie WMmarth, Sport* Editor Nomi Borenatcin, Assistant Managing Editor David Butler, Feature Editor David Brown, Religion** New* Editor Shota Ufthio, Photo Editor Steve Dimeo, Entertainment Editor Editorial Board: Chuck Beggs, Boh Carl, 1-an y Lange, Phil Semas, Maxine Elliott, Pam Bladine, Gene SokoUki, Nomi Borenatcin, Scott Bartlett, Vane® Wclty, Robin Tuttle, Bob Holme*.
