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)