Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 21, 1968)
Time to Speak Out! Graduate students can no longer hide behind their student determents Now they must step forward and be counted as either supporters or resistors of the draft. No longer can the educationally-elite pay lip service to those who openly resist the selective service. They must choose to fight the draft or fight. We regard this as a healthy situation for the nation. The time has come when Americans must speak out against the draft and the war in Vietnam and the students are the people to do that speaking. First, students must speak out against the draft as unconstitutional. Clearly a system of involuntary servitude violates Amendment XIII Section 1 of the Constitution which states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ex cept as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Second, the students must support the right of dissent of those who refuse to serve in the armed forces and those who encourage others not to serve. Students must speak out against atrocities such as the arrest of men of conscience like Dr. Benjamin Spock and Rev. William Sloan Coffin, who see the moral necessity of encourag ing the youth of this nation to resist the draft. If men cannot exercise they’re right to free speech in keeping with their own moral con sciences then the right to free speech will be lost. Third, students should speak out against this country’s immoral, illegal and insane involve ment in Vietnam. They should stop today to look at the record, a record which reflects con stant lies on the part of the present administra tion. The record shows every justification this country had for initial involvement in Vietnam has been lost. For example, today we see more and more that there is no monolithic Communist conspiracy in the world and yet our original in volvement in Vietnam was based on the belief that such a conspiracy existed. The record shows that the United States has continued to increase its commitment in Viet nam at the same time it is saying such an in crease will not take place. The question now is if. when Lyndon Johnson says he will not use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, does he really mean he will. The record shows that the U S behavior in Vietnam violates the laws of war which are binding on all Americans. “In the Name of America" was published recently and it contains over 400 pages of examples in which the U S. has violated such agreements as the Hague (1907) and Geneva (1949) Conventions and the “Nuremberg Principles" if International Law (1946-1950). The record shows the United States stands increasingly alone in Vietnam. This great na tion is being simultaneously laughed and cursed at by the rest of the world. Now as never before, the—citizens of the United States must not say to themselves. “I don’t think it's right, but what can I do.” That's how Hitler got his start. The people of this country must act and speak now or face the consequences of history. The graduate students have been thrust into the position of being the first who must stand and be counted as true Americans. Not in the sense of what America is, hut in the sense of what America must be. 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. However the Emerald does present on this page columnists and letter writers whose opinions reflect those of our diverse readership and not those of the Emerald itself. MIKE FANCHER, Editor ASSOCIATE EDITORS non tacnus Rick Fitch Gil Johnson 1. i11ua iucicijuifcwi Cliff Sanderlin John Sasaki Jean Snider Jaqi Thompson WlLoUxt BISHUr JK. Business Manager RICH JERN'STEDT Advertising Manager BARBARA STONE National Advertising Manager University of Oregon. Eugene, Wednesday, February 21, 1968 ^J^araltihoJ Is Contemporary Art Sick? Editor's note: Dimitri Karakit sos is a graduate in business ad ministration. As I am writing these lines, I get the feeling that some of the people who will read them will not resist calling me an il literate, uneducated, uncultivat ed and profane individual. This is because I am touch ing on a subject considered as a taboo by most of us. My crit icisms will deal with the way »1l!l!!!!!Viwrr ''ifHiIliii.IlliMU Emerald Editor: Good Taxes Emerald Editor: There has been a great deal of concern expressed recently over the proposed raising of taxes. It is a shameful fact that people are unwilling to support increased taxation. Taxation is the best way to keep the coun try strong and prosperous and guarantee the solidarity of the government. Taxation is neces sary for a strong central govern ment—and where would we be without it?—Anarchy! An historical example is Eng land under the reign of King Stephen. How much better to endure a tax than to suffer the chaos of such anarchy! The greatness of the American peo ple lies in their willingness to tax themselves for the common good. William Rufus, Graduate, Political Science Rannulf liambard Graduate, Accounting The Minority Emerald Editor: If there is relatively little ra cial tension on this campus, it is probably due in part to the efforts of some to keep things cool. This theory is supported by an incident during the pre liminaries to the Oregon-UCLA game Feb. 10. For many basketball fans in Mac Court that night, it was the longest national anthem ever experienced. Several Black students — at least a dozen — were sitting together in the Oregon section. A sort of collective snicker went up from this group the instant the lights dimmed and the drum roll began. About half the Negroes stood to salute with the rest of the capacity crowd. The others remained sitting. Several of them sang—a laugh ing, mocking, jived-up version of the anthem: “Oh, say can you see . . “Yeah, baby the bombs bursting in air . . “Go, LBJ . . Some of those in the group who were not singing encour aged the others with hoots and jeers. It was hot and stuffy and close in that student section. Some spectators ignored t h e scene and fixed their eyes on the flag Others darted nervous glances at the cut-ups More than one fellow muttered some thing under his breath. Several girls sang louder than is nor mal, apparently trying to drown the disturbance. For many, it seemed a short eternity before the final words: “. . . and the land—of the— freeeee.” Somehow, several moments of tense silence followed the anth em. There were no smiles in that section, as the teams went into their huddles. Then, very casually, a young Negro, who had been seated down in front of the disturb ance, rose to his feet and turn ed around to face the others. At least 200 pairs'of eyes blink ed. Mocking the deepest South ern Negro accent, toning it with utter contempt, the young "cat” addressed the miscreants: “You boys keep singin’ like that an’ you ain’ never gonna be set free!” That’s when the place came down. Maybe it was a scream of relief. Maybe it was because the teams broke huddle. Maybe it was because Lew Alcindor loped out onto the floor. What ever the cause, it seemed to many that the entire crowd of 11,000 was cheering for that minority within a minority who had the guts to stand up and erase the misdeeds of a dozen others. J. I). Bates Senior, Journalism contemporary man expresses himself. I am not speaking about cun temporary Americans specifical ly, although what I am about to say <loex refer to them as well. I am speaking about contem porary man in general. My remarks are mainly direct ed against "modern art," but, I dare say, they are equally appli cable to other forms of expres sion, such as modern literature, music, theatre and movies. Kesponsum Celsinum The other day, as I was cas ually viewing some works of art exhibited in the Krb Memo rial I'nion building, 1 overheard the following: "Hey, Judy! I-ook at this! Isn’t it neat?” Judy (standing before a paint ing entitled “Tiberias,” pausing momentarily, bending her head to the right): “Yeah! That looks great!" I went back and took a second look at the painting in ques tion and I was reminded of what Celsus once said: "Either I am unable to understand what this man is saying, or what he is saying is simply meaningless.” This responsum Celsinum, I thought, could be used with ref erence to the creator of that painting. Taboo But would you dare make a statement like that publicly? How dare you, when the pain ter (or writer, speaker, etc., for that matter) is not just any body, but an established artist whose works are admired by thousands or perhaps millions of people? Not only wouldn’t you give this responsum Cclsin um publicly, but you wouldn’t dare whisper it to yourself. “Well,” you might argue with yourself, "perhaps this painter (or writer, speaker, etc.) is sick. What about those people who admire his creations? Are they sick, too?” But you know darn well that you are perfectly sane and it is rather difficult for you to be lieve that all those admirers are intellectually more cultivated than you are. So, what’s the out come? I am afraid frequently the outcome is that we turn the whole matter into a taboo. We just don’t talk about it. We repress it deep into our “un conscious,” as an adherent of an old psychoanalytic theory would say. What happens is it is often hard for most of us to continuously admit we don’t understand what so many other fellowmen accept and admire. So we say, at least to our selves, that we understand it just as well as those others and thus we (eel relaxed and contented. Eventually, we are led to believe that what i« kick might not look so kick after all. If we are mentally sane and well balanced individuals, tlm belief might cost us a lot. Andersen's Tale When some contemporary ar tists, particularly painters and sculptors, exhibit their work publicly, they seemingly try to tell us something like this: “1, the artist, see things this way and you, who look at my work, should see things the way I see them. If you don't, then you don't know what art is, you are uneducated, uncultivated, and illiterate." On the one hand, these ar tists want to be judged not ob jectively but on the basis of their subjective criteria that de termine what good or bad is. On the other hand, these same people want the public to rec ognize them as artists and ac cept their work, no matter what the public's subjective criteria are. We, the public, do not ac cept their work as worthy be cause we arc uncultivated and we are uncultivated because we do not accept their work That is quite a sophism, I would say. But the sad thing is that most of these artists are accepted by the general public. This reminds me of a story that my grandmother told me once when I was a little boy. It's one of Andersen's tales about some weavers who claim ed they could make a type of cloth that was so thin, you could hardly see it. They could do this because . . . they used no yarn whatsoever. In other words, they didn’t act natty nTaVe any cloth, hut they claimed they did and that it was invisible. And who would question a thing like that? So, one day they made a robe of this cloth for their king and asked him to parade be fore his subjects “dressed” in this robe, that is, naked. Everybody stood with mouths wide open admiring their king’s invisible robe until a little hoy screamed: “Gee, our king is nakedr It was only then that the people discovered what had happened. A similar story, which is sup posed to he true, was widely cir culating in Europe in the sum mer of 1900. I believe it was first told by Andre Maurois. It was announced in England that a “silent concert” was to be given by a famous pianist. The concert hall was packed (Continued on pane 1)
