Faculty Should
Open the Doors
• • •
“Not fair” cried some faculty members after the Emer
ald and the Register-Guard pointed out that at their last
meeting the faculty voted to keep out the Emerald and then
passed a motion attacking clandestine or covert operations.
But the meetings aren’t clandestine, say some faculty
members. We release what we decide, they add. "The
meetings are just private,” said one.
Well, our dictionary defines clandestine as “secret”
or “concealed.” Faculty meetings certainly are that. We
only know the final decisions. We don’t know anything
about the discussion For that matter, we have to go on
good faith the faculty really tells us what happened. It’s
like covering the Viet Nam war using only press releases
handed out by the Defense Department and trying to give
the whole picture. For the faculty certainly manages the
news of its meetings just as the U.S. government manages
the news of Viet Nam.
Those reactionary faculty members who oppose open
meetings keep saying that press coverage will destroy
their scholarly privacy. But we aren’t asking to cover their
classroom lectures. Nor is this a meeting of a private group.
The faculty is carrying out public laws which give them
the power to set curriculum, student discipline rules, etc.
Many faculty members keep implying that there is some
thing especially great about the things that are said and
that the discussion would be inhibited by the presence of
the press and public. But a lot of other faculty members,
including some who oppose opening the meetings, keep
asking w hy we want to get in. They tell us the meetings are
full of parliamentary haggling, nitpicking, and irrelevant
discussion. Arthur Pearl, professor of education, probably
summed up that feeling when he said recently that if the
meetings ever were opened the faculty would probably
have to give trading stamps to get anybody to come.
Perhaps, if the discussions are really that bad, a little
public exposure might improve the quality of discussion.
Maybe the real reason some faculty members oppose open
ing their meeting is that they are afraid of having their
ineffectiveness displayed before all the campus. Or, if the
discussion is as great as some of the others say it is, then
all these great words ought to be he^rd not only by faculty
members but the rest of us so that wd might become better
enlightened.
But exposing faculty members as idiots and improving
the quality of discussion aren’t why we want to get in.
Almost every matter the faculty looks at is of vital interest
to students and the rest of the academic community. Take
today’s agenda—creation of a new degree, the course
evaluation project, eligibility for student office, stadium
seating—these are all matters to deep interest to students.
They have the right to know the discussion and delibera
tions that go into the final decision.
Despite the few reactionaries who oppose opening the
meetings and despite the fact that the faculty has voted
against opening the meetings three times in a year, we
think a majority of faculty members really want the meet
ings opened. We hope that this majority will act today to
end the policy of clandestine meetings. And they should
do it as soon as possible. Too much important business has
already been done behind closed doors. The time is long
past to open them.
Ask Better
Student Seating...
When University President Arthur S. Flemming con
siders the question of student seating in the new stadium,
he's going to have a thick stack of recommendations. Just
about everybody has put in their two cents worth. Today,
hopefully, the University facility make their recommenda
tion. It should be one of the most important.
The key point for the faculty—and the main reason they
should even be interested—is the place of athletics in the
University community.
The kind of seating students get in that stadium will be
a good indicator of where athletics fit in. If students get
crammed into the end zone, that can be read that our
athletic program is primarily there to make money and
serve the sportswriters and sports fans. If students are
giten sideline seats equal to those that everybody else
gets, that can be read as saying that intercollegiate ath
letics’ primary purpose is still the entertainment of stu
dents. As such, it has a legitimate place in the University.
Athletic Department officials have moaned that they need
those seats the students want in order-to. sell, season tickets
and make enough money to support the athletic program.
Oregon Daily Emerald
Opinions expressed on the editorial pane are those of the KmeraldI and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of the ASUO 01 the University.
However, the Kmerald does present on this page columnists and letter
writers whose opinions reflect those of our diverse readership and not those
of the Kmerald Itself.
PHIL SEMAS, Editor
WILBUR BISHOP JR.
Business Mummer
RICH JERNSTEDT
Advertlslim Mummer
CLIFF SANDERLIN
Associate Editor
ANNETTE UUUtmNAPi
Managing Editor
MIKE FANCHER
News Editor
JEAN SNIDER
Editorial Page Editor
University of Oregon. Eugene, Wednesday, April 5, 1967
They point out that they’ve already committed a lot of good
seats to those who contributed money to the stadium and
who contribute to the department’s grant-in-aid program.
But those seats aren’t being given away. They’re being sold
and all those contributors have is a first option to buy them.
Autzen Stadium is much bigger than Hayward Field or
Portland’s Multnomah Stadium. The Athletic Department
has managed to make a profit every year in those stadia
and give students seats from the 50 yard line on around
the end zone. We don’t understand why they shouldn’t be
able to make as much money giving students the same
kind of seating in a bigger stadium.
Since the Athletic Department ought to be able to make
enough money and assuming the faculty wants athletics
to remain in its proper place in the academic community,
the faculty has two courses open. They can pass the motion
by James Klonoski and D. J. Finlay, associate professors
of political science asking for seating between the 30 yard
lines. Or they can endorse the ASUO Senate’s proposal to
give students 55 yards of sideline seating, from one 45
yard line to the end zone.
They should keep in mind, however, that the ASUO
Senate proposal is already a compromise. According to
ASUO President Henry Drummonds, most senators actu
ally wanted something like the faculty proposal but they
decided to compromise that with the original plans which
put the best student seats on the 30 yard line. Perhaps the
faculty will want to come out for the most liberal plan.
But whichever course they take, we think University
faculty members should definitely come out for good
student seats in the stadium.
... And Say Nothing
About Evaluations
After the University faculty in February adopted a
motion endorsing the idea of a survey of student reactions
to courses and faculty members, everyone assumed the
issue was dead. Not. So. For comes now Robert Summers,
associate professor of law, with a new motion on the issue.
The Summers motion is two pages long and is loaded
with words (three “whereas” clauses with three or four
points under each one). One point that needs clarification
is that Summers asks that faculty members not be forced
to give up use of the classroom and classroom time for the
project. This has already been decided. A faculty member
has the option of not using class time and having students
bring back the form later.
But that’s not the brunt of the Summers’ motion. Its main
point is to recommend that President Flemming prohibit
the ASUO from publishing an evaluation of a faculty
member against his will. Summers bases this request on
the fact that Flemming has allocated “state funds” (al
though they are student fees) and has provided assistance
of University staff members in conducting the evaluation.
But for the president to do what Summers suggests and
for the faculty to ask the president to do such a thing would
conflict with the long-standing tradition of a free student
press on this campus. For the ASUO’s Course Survey Bul
letin is no less a student publication than the Emerald,
which also receives student fee funds and some staff assist
ance, particularly in business matters.
President Flemming has long had a policy, which we
always assumed was supported by most faculty members,
that the University doesn’t interfere with the content of a
student publication. We would like to think that the staunch
defenders of academic freedom who make up the University
faculty would also be staunch defenders of a free press. If
so, then the faculty should not want to decide what student
government can and cannot publish in a student publica
tion. Faculty members who feel they are badly treated do,
of course, always have the option of going to the courts.
The faculty made a good statement on course evaluation
when they passed Professor Aaron Novick’s motion in
February. In that motion they left it up to the students to
run their own evaluation project, although they did en
courage individual faculty members to participate. The
faculty should leave it at that. They don’t need to say
anything else.
Emerald
Editor
All letters to the editor must
be typewritten and double
spaced. Letters must not ex
ceed 300 words and must be
signed in ink. giving the class
and major of the writer. Those
dealing with one subject and
pertaining to the University or
Eugene community will be giv
en preference. The Emerald re
serves the right to edit letters
for style, grammar, punctuation,
and potentially libelous content.
Letters not meeting these cri
teria and those which arc mim
eographed or otherwise obvious
duplicates will be returned.
Stolen!
Emerald Editor:
My master’s thesis has come
to a screeching halt The
source for most of the imag
cry and ideas in my thesis pro
ject has vanished and conse
quently so has my project
The volume, with which I
was working, Eros, a rare and
limited publication, is worth
a great deal of money, approxi
mately $70. I am nsking for its
return—so that 1 may finish my
thesis and return the book to
its rightful owner.
Jell Stewart
Graduate Student,
Painting and Drawing
* • *
New Generation
Emerald Editor:
Representative Thornton: Re:
The bill on restriction of cam
pus speakers.
What you advocate is clearly
an abridgement of the right to
free speech.
According to an Emerald ar
ticle on the front page of the
March 28 issue, you want that
“speakers who advocate break
ing the law should be barred
from campus speeches.”
What are you going to do
about such things as H. D. Thor
eau's article "On the Duty of
Civil Disobedience"? He advo
cated breaking the law if the
law was wrong.
You will probably suggest at
this point that the law be cluing
ed by popular vote. You fail
to consider that 18-year-olds
cannot vote.
And if they sent their ideas
in to you or another represents
live, they would probably be
shrugged off as “irresponsible
students trying to raise a big
stink ”
First, there are many students
that are completely or almost
completely self-supporting, and
they are not completely irre
sponsible.
Second, if the students sug
gested something that you did
not believe in, you could just
ignore it and nothing would get
done.
Another point to consider is
that perhaps the post-war gen
eration has decided to set up
new standards, different from
those of the previous genera
tion.
You may wonder why the
new generation wants to do this.
It is simple and has been ex
plained before. We don’t like
the world that you left for us
so we want a chance to deal
with the problems in our own
way.
Added to all of this is the
natural curiosity of what and
how radical people think, and
what relationship our thinking
has with theirs.
I would like to ask you to
consider these things before
you criticize the things we do
here at the University of Ore
gon, Oregon State, and Port
land State (also: SOC, EOC,
etc.).
Remember, we have to live
in this world, too.
Gerald Sanders
Sophomore, Mathematics
Oregon Dally Emerald
Ron Eachug, Sports Editor
Tom Thompson, Photo Bditor
Sully Sharrard, Feature Editor
Paul Polsky, Associate Sports Editor
Chris Hoodlum, Entertainment Editor
Lee O’Conner,
Women’s Affairs Editor
Jaqt Thompson,
Political Affairs Editor