. „„„„„„„ An Editorial niniii’' ''lii'ii iii'iiii'TujiiiiiimiliiiunuiiiuiiiiimiiiiiiiuimiHmmuimiHiimnniuimmiimHinnimnHiiiHHimiHHnHmnHifiimme
lit ■ ■:i;■ v" ii .
Community Government Next Year?
mf
Community government and an equal faculty
student share in the decision making process can
soon become a reality at the University if the
Faculty-Senate and the ASUO are willing to back
their words with action.
We have said we believe the sleep-in in John
son Hall last week was a step toward community
government
If nothing else, it stimulated dialogue on com
munity government.
Within the remaining month of the term stu
dents and faculty can take further steps toward
establishing community government.
The food for dialogue is there.
The ASUO and others have talked of commu
nity government for several years.
The reasons why students should have an equal
share with the faculty in making decisions have
been pronounced time and time again. Both the
students and the faculty share an interest in the
educational process of this institution. And stu
dents should have a share in making the decisions
that will affect their education and their lives
here at the University.
The faculty is responsible for the University
curriculum, for academic requirements and for
scholarship requirements. It is also responsible
for student activities and student conduct.
In these areas which directly affect them, the
students still have very little say in making deci
sions, particularly where general policy is con
cerned.
In January we printed the full text of proposed
guidelines for faculty-student participation in
governing the academic community. Sponsors of
that proposal included six faculty members, four
graduate students and Lee Bollinger, the 1966
67 ASUO vice-president.
That proposal outlines general principles and
implementation of joint participation of students
and teachers in decision making through faculty
student committees.
The agreement between Lieuallen and the stu
dents over the Presidential Search Committee
added further to the dialogue on community gov
ernment.
However, as the statement by the Faculty-Sen
ate shows, that agreement brought about an un
answered question about community govern
ment.
Does community government mean equal share
of participation between three groups (the fac
ulty, the administration, and the students) or be
tween two groups (the students and the faculty)?
The Faculty-Senate said in its statement there
is no sharp distinction between administration,
as defined for purposes of the committee, and the
faculty. Administration was defined as deans of
schools and heads of departments.
The formulation of a faculty-administi’ation
dichotomy would not be “in the best interests of
the University” the statement said.
We agree with the Faculty-Senate. We believe,
as the statement implies, that community govern
ment should be based upon faculty and students
sharing equally in decision making, not students,
faculty and administration.
But we are more concerned with another opin
ion stated by the Faculty-Senate. The statement
expressed concern that the Johnson Hall sleep
in jeopardized “the orderly development of work
able relationships, based on mutual respect, be
tween faculty and students at the University.”
In the statement the Faculty-Senate urged that
“further questions of University policy on which
students ought to be heard be settled by reasoned
discussion and negotiation between the official,
elected or duly appointed agencies of the faculty
and of the Associated Students of the University
of Oregon.”
With this statement in mind we reiterate a
recommendation of the proposed guidelines men
tioned previously. Those guidelines recommend
ed regularized student participation in certain
regular faculty committees. But it also recom
mended a special Committee on Academic Legis
lature to explore plans for a legislative body of
faculty and students to deal with all matters now
delegated to the faculty.
This committee was to be formed once faculty
student participation was implemented and was
to present a final plan two years later.
However, in view of the Faculty-Senate's com
mitment to reasoned discussion and negotiation
we believe it feasible and necessary to establish
such a committee as soon as possible.
Therefore we call for the immediate implemen
tation of a committee to discuss and negotiate a
plan for community government at the Univer
sity to be initiated at the beginning of the next
fiscal year.
This committee should at least be composed
of 1) students appointed through the ASUO,
which the Faculty-Senate recognizes as repre
senting the students. 2) members of the Faculty
Senate who adopted the recent statement. These
members to be appointed by the Faculty-Senate,
3) sponsors of the proposed guidelines for facul
ty-student participation.
Further details of the make-up of the commit
tee can be worked out by the ASUO and the Fac
ulty-Sena.2.
We challenge the ASUO and the Faculty-Sen
ate to participate in such an effort to establish
community government at the University through
channels recognized as legitimate.
lllll!lllllllllllllllttlllllllllll!llllllllllllllllllll!ll!lll!l!II!!! J^ttfia leader, lljai 'fa \fani Iowa too w....
Take a Look Around You
Editor's note: We have re
ceived several letters, all over
the 300 word minimum, re
sponding to a letter printed in
the Thursday, April 18, issue of
the Emerald written by Jerry
Scranton, a graduate in Library
Science.
Due to the fact that Scranton’s
letter listed a series of points
all which the letter writers felt
needed rebutting, we are fore
going the standard word limit
and printing this one.
In his letter, Scranton sug
gests the Blacks discontinue
“their vilification of Caucasian
social attitudes. He raises a
number of pointed questions di
rected at the crime rate, illegiti
macy, venereal disease rate, edit
cation, and general attitude of
Black people as he sees it. He
ends by saying, “Do something
for yourself and by yourself."
We would like to take this
opportunity to thank Mr. Scran
ton for so eloquently defining
the consequences of the social,
economic and political strangle
hold White America has on the
Black man.
With reference to your “em
barrassing questions” let us
consider the following:
(1) As any general sociology
text will confirm the high ar
rest and conviction rates of
Black people arc in part due
to discrimination; it has been
proven that law enforcement of
Blacks is characteristically se
vere. The remaining difference
in crime rates is merely a class
variation — the majority of
Black people being in the low
er socio-economic brackets in
which crime rates are highest.
Studies have shown that Black
and White crime rates in slum
areas are approximately t h e
same."
(2) We note that you failed
to mention in your lengthy dis
course the low employment rate
of the Black man. Stokely Car
michael links inavailibility of
jobs to the breakdown of the
Black family structure: “Many
men who are unable to find
employment leave their homes
so that their wives can qualify
for Aid to Dependent Children
or welfare.”
(3) The venereal disease rate
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.
RON EACHUS, Editor
John Anderson
Rick Fitch
Git Johnson
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Liiula Melerjurgen
Doug Onyon
Mike Russelle
Ron Say lor
Sally Schippers
D. L. Sonnichsen
Jaqi Thompson
RICH JERNSTEDT
Advert is Ins Director
DOUG CRICHTON
Advertising Manager
BARBARA STONE
National Advertising Manager
University of Oregon. Eugene, Wednesday, May 1,1968
might possibly relate to the fact
that statistics are taken from
public health services rather
than the private physicians to
which diseased White people
go.
(4) Concerning the number
of Black youths who graduate
from (inadequate) educational
institutions—since when has a
diploma enhanced the position
of a Black man in the com
munity?
(5) Do you, Mr. Scranton,
know the illegitimate birth rate
of any people living in over
crowded slum conditions? Wel
fare studies show that a large
percentage of slum inhabitants
either are unaware of or have
no access to birth control mea
sures.
(6) Like you, Mr. Scranton,
Stokely Carmichael is concern
ed about muggings and robbery
in the Black community: “Chil
dren growing up in a welfare
situation often leave school be
cause of a lack of incentive or
because they do not have
enough food to eat or clothes
to wear.
They in turn go out to seek
jobs but find a more negative
situation than their fathers
faced. So they turn to petty
crime, pushing dope, prostitu
tion (joining the Army if pos
sible), and the cycle continues.”
(7) You spoke of Black peo
ple burning their neighbor's
homes — consider who their
neighbors are: whose homes
and whose property?
(8) We think it very obser
vant of you, Mr. Scranton, to
note that Black people did not
build the environment in which
they are forced to live. White
America has generously provid
ed the Black man with the ghet
to. Perhaps he would be more
inclined to preserve a commu
nity which he himself had
built.
(Continued on page 7)
.mi.mm...frjttfC sUMf ....
Tongue Point Center
Seen As Ineffective
Editor’s note: The following is a column submitted by Marc
Levy, a sophomore in liberal aits. Levy expresses concern with
the way that the Tongue Point Women’s Job Corps is being
run.
What is the Job Corps? According to the program handbook put
out by Tongue Point “The womens Job Corps considers its ob
jectives to be threefold: education for family membership; educa
tion for employability and education for citizenship in the broader
sense.”
It also states “The Tongue Point program will provide Corps
women with the environmental influences they can expect to ex
perience within society. Educational experiences will be developed
which will enable the Corpswomen to internalize behavior patterns
conducive to effective functioning within the broader democratic
society.”
After visiting Tongue Point, seeing their programs and talking
to numerous girls involved in the program; it can be said that the
girls have high regard for the classes and the opportunity to con
tinue their education. However, it was also obvious to the girls
and the University students that several of the programs were not
being run effectively. There was an evident gap between what was
being stated as policy and what was really being done.
One of the biggest problems is that the administration treats
these girls as if they were in a detention home rather than a volun
tary educational institution. For example the girls cannot leave the
base on Mondays or Tuesday, and on the weekdays that they can
leave they must be back on base by 10:00 p.m. On weekends they
must be back by 12:00 p.m. It does not seem unfair until one
realizes that these girls are between the ages of 16-22 and the
average age is 19. Besides the curfew, no dates are allowed on
the base. The girls dates must leave them at the gate and the girls
must walk over half a mile to the closest dorm. On the rare oc
casion that there is a dance on the base it starts at 7:30 and ends
at 10:30. Once a Jobs Corps man or woman comes to the dance,
they are not allowed to leave until it is over. No unauthorized
person allowed on the base.
The Corps women and men are treated like animals rather than
human beings. They are not at all confronted with as the hand
book states “Environmental influences they can expect to experi
ence within society." As one administrator stated “Their behavior
can be changed in the same way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, by
repetition of behavior until it becomes normal.”
Since the University gets federal funds for the running of
Tongue Point it must take immediate action to change the policies
which at the present time takes away these gii'ls human dignity.
It is time the University became involved in the programs and
education of these girls. The time has come for the University
to fulfill its obligations.