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
LARRY LANGE
News Editor
CHUCK BEGGS, Editor
BOB CARL
Managing Editor
PHIL SEMAS
Associate Editor
WILBUR BISHOP, JR.
Advertising Manager
MAXINE ELLIOTT
Associate Editor
Page 6 University of Oregon, Eugene. Thursday. April 21, 1966
A Missed Opportunity
77*’ Motion A on Before the Faculty
On Graduate Language Requirements Gw Be Improved
The Faculty-Student Council missed an
excellent opportunity Tuesday to add some
thing significant to the present dialogue
over the requirement of reading proficiency
in two foreign languages for doctoral can
didates.
The Council quickly asserted its approval
of the motion made at the last faculty meet
ing by Robert Campbell, head of the eco
nomics department, which would allow de
partments. if they wished, to substitute
another program for the second language.
We couldn't agree with them more and
we re happy that they moved quickly to en
dorse Mr. Campbell's motion.
The requirement of a second language
for the Ph.D. should be abolished for at
least two reasons.
A second language is no longer a signi
ficant research tool, since translations of
major works in most fields are now avail
able. And Mr. Campbell’s motion allows
those departments where the second lang
uage is still necessary to require it.
The second reason for a change is that
few students ever really gain much out or
that second language requirement. All they
have to do is pass one test, which involves
translating 150 lines of carefully selected
prose. Usually they use a dictionary. And
many graduate students say that the tittle
that they have to learn to pass that test is
quickly forgotten. It makes the second
language really meaningless.
Besides the argument that there has al
ways been a second language required and
therefore there always shall be a second
language, the only argument left for keep
ing the second language is that it hurts
American education generally, since lang
uages are often neglected in American
schools.
And that's where the Faculty-Student
Council could have improved Mr. Camp
bell's motion.
It’s obvious right now most graduate
students are learning one language fairly
well (at least they can read it) and one lang
uage hardly at all (they can pass one test
on it). It seems to us that it would be a
good idea to toughen the requirements tor
the first language. In other words, make
the students learn one language well in
tead of two languages half-well. One wav
of strengthening this is to emphasize a
speaking knowledge as well as a written
knowledge of the language.
A tough requirement for one language
would be better than a useless two-language
requirement.
The Faculty-Student Council discussed
th’S Tuesday but took no action. We wish
they had and we hope the faculty will take
steps to look into the matter of strengthen
ing the requirement for the first language.
Speaking from Ignorance
We're getting sick and tired of people
who criticize this newspaper when they
don't know what they’re talking about.
We have two recent cases that really
make us see red.
Case one: several letter writers have
made cracks about our estimate that 600
people watched the rally on the steps of
the Student Union earlier this month.
And “The Almost Daily Rhinestone.” a
little mimeographed sheet which we take
to be a publication by a faculty member,
made a wisecrack about it. In a “news
story” about a “faculty demonstration” to
“demand a voice in the Emerald,” the pub
lication, which by its own admission is pub
lished in a men’s lavatory, said 1.200 faeul
ulty participated in the rally and cracked:
Some have questioned our estimate of 1,200
on the ground that the faculty has only 600
voting members. Possibly our reporter, like
some others we know, sees double. But 600
or 1,200 we still had twice as many as the
students.
For the information of our letter writers
and the anonymous author of the “Daily
Rhinestone” we had five different counts
made, all by non-staff members, and they
all came up with between 500 and 600.
Case Two: We’ve had several people in
the office and a couple of letters about one
statement we made in our Monday cover
age of the International Festival. The worst
was one letter writer who criticized the
“editorial” in which Assistant Managing
Editor Nomi Borenstein said, “A group of
barefooted West African students (Ph D.)
candidates among them” who performed
at the Festival. He demanded an apology.
Well, sir. no apology will be forthcoming.
In the first place it wasn’t an editorial. It
was a news story that described some of
the many events of the Festival. And in the
second place, the West African students
were bare-footed and there were Ph D. can
didates among them. That isn’t a critical
comment on African students. It's a fact.
And what’s wrong with a newspaper print
ing facts?
We don’t object to criticism, but we do
wish those who criticize us knew what they
were talking about.
No Openings
The Moderator, which calls itself the
“magazine for leading students,” said in
an article on campus leaders that “Students
are needed at the University of Oregon to
serve on the tenure committee.”
Well, as far as we know there is no tenure
committee. And if there were, we’re sure
the faculty wouldn’t want any students
serving on it.
just CHECKING Your oil, sonnw:*'
Letters to the Editor
Apologize
Emerald Editor:
It is no exaggeration to say
that Miss Nomi Borenstein’s edi
torial about the International
Festival extravaganza infuriated
many African students when
she wrote about the (gasp!)
“barefooted" West African stu
dents with (golly!) “PhD. can
didates among them.”
Although I'm sure she meant
to imply that even I’h.D. candi
dates were not too highbrow to
sing and dance, she also implied,
h o w e v e r inadvertently, that
West Africans were primitive,
barefoot dancing people that
(wonder of wonders) somehow
managed to have Ph.D. candi
dates among them. Sue h
thoughtless statements leave a
had taste in the mouths of these
people who aro destined to be
leaders of their nation, and
gravely endanger African Amer
ican relations, both now and in
the future.
I think it would be a fine and
good thing if Miss Borenstein
would publicly apologize to these
people.
Erich Klchter
Graduate, Chemistry
Defends Review
Emerald Editor:
I am writing this letter in
order to answer the critics of
Miss Maxine Elliott's review of
the San Francisco Mime Troupe
—a review which, in my opinion,
by the virtues of its honesty and
accuracy of interpretation, is
the best entertainment review
to appear in the Emerald so far
this year.
It seems that there were two
basic complaints which all of
the critics seem to agree upon:
(1) that Miss Elliott did not
remain for the duration of the
program, and (2) that she was
trying to escape and deny the
true “realities of life.”
The first complaint can be
dismissed with a simple analogy:
that one does not have to eat
all of a rotten apple to know
that the portion which he throws
away is also rotten.
However, it is the second com
plaint which particularly inter
ests me. I am trying to picture
in my mind the image of “over
a thousand students, faculty
members, and adults” going to
see the San Francisco Mime
Troupe with the intention of
discovering “the realities of
life." The image seems rather
of a man going down to the city
dump, sticking his head in a
garbage can, and then spending
two or three hours trying to
reflect upon abstract universal
ity. As if there, in the midst of
the stench, among the rotten
eggs, tin cans, decomposed vege
table matter, and dung beetles,
one* can discover the true na
ture of man, and of tiis position
in the universe.
I believe that someone ought
to point out that the arguments
presented by the critics who so
vehemently defended the Mime
Troupe not in spite of but be
cause of the troupe's utter in
tellectual degeneracy and moral
depravity are not really argu
ments. Itatber they arc attempts
at justification.
When I say "justification" I
mean to illustrate that the
troupe does not provide its
apologists with entertainment as
much as it provides psycholo
gical reassurance To people like
Miss Elliott's critic's anil the
Students for a Democratic So
ciety, the troupe does not come
as entertainer!) as much as they
come as divine missionaries of
absolution. If these apologists
can somehow convince them
selves that the show which the
troupe puts on is truly illus
trative of the "realities of life";
il they can somehow convince
themselves that the garbage
cans and public lavatories of
our society are microcosms and
the only true representative of
the whole of our society, then
all mental and moral failings
will be automatically justified
If the truth were known, one
would realize that the apologists
do not want the ghettos of our
society to disappear. bather they
want them to expand and get
worse so that at length they will
overrun respectable institutions
and depravity will become a
sacred American tradition.
I don’t know about the apolo
gists, but as for myself I do not
look to garbage cans and public
lavatories for the justification of
my existence. For that matter,
neither does Miss Klliott. If Miss
Elliott's critics did not like her
review of the Mime Troupe,
this is probably because they
do not realize that her review
was not motivated by a desire
to justify garbage cans or to
justify herself to garbage cans.
To Miss Elliott's critics, and to
the SDS, I would suggest the
following: take your heads out
of the garbage cans. There is a
whole wide wonderful world
which you have been missing
for all too long a time.
Caines Smith
Senior, English
Journalism
Oregon Daily Emerald
Rande Wilmarth, Sports Editor
Nonii Borensteiu,
Assistant Managing Editor
David Drown, Religious News Editor
Shota Ushio, Photo Editor
Steve Dimco, Entertainment Editor
Editorial Hoard: Chuck Be ggs, Boh Carl,
Larry Lange, Phil Sernas, Maxine
Klliott, Pam Hladine, Gene Sokolski,
Nomi Borenstein, Scott Bartlett, Vance
Welty, Robin Tuttle, Dob Holmes.