Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 13, 1968)
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 ASSOCIATE EDITORS John Anderson Rick Fitch Gil Johnson Linda Meierjurgen Doug Onyon Mike Russelle Ron Saylor Sally schippers D. L. Sonnichsen Jaqi Thompson RICH JERNSTEDT Advertising Director DOUG CRICHTON Advertising Manager BARBARA STONE National Advertising Manager University of Oregon, Eugene, Monday, May 13,1968 Monetary Sanction Hits Students The House of Representatives' decision Thursday to deny federal loans to student demonstrators runs true to form. The so-called leaders of the nation continue to react to the nation’s problems without solving them. In the recent past the nation’s demonstrations have cen tered on the problems of the war and the draft, and radi cal discrimination and poverty. The nation has reacted by using greater force in break ing up demonstrations and by developing more powerful and efficient means of quelling riots. Meanwhile the Vietnam war continues and consequently so does the draft. The country has provided civil rights legislation without providing jobs. The country has pro vided federal troops to the cities but not adequate housing. Thus, the causes for riots cited by the Kerner report still exist. Now another problem has been added. The focus at the moment is on college campuses where students are direct ing some of their activism to changes in higher education. So what does the House of Representatives do? It passes, 306-54, an amendment allowing college authorities to deny federal aid to students participating in demonstrations. Not only is the amendment dangerous to individual free doms and to higher education, but it will also, we believe, be ineffective. The amendment would bar from federal assistance any student who refuses to obey a lawful order of the college authorities and is determined by those authorities to have taken part in activities that lead to a disruption of opera tions at the college. It leaves much of the interpretation up to the college authorities. They will decide whether an order they give is lawful, whether a demonstration does in fact exist, and whether that demonstration disrupts the operations at the college. This can be done, and most likely will be done, separate from any consideration of the cause for the demonstration. However, we have enough faith in the commitment of the students who have demonstrated on various issues on the nation’s campuses that the House amendment will not alter sufficiently that commitment nor the number of stu dents participating in demonstrations. It merely adds to the consequences one must accept if lie is to act upon his conscience. It merely adds to the alien ation students have for the “system.” Students believe that certain things must be changed, and at the same time they see clearly that those within the system who can bring about the changes are failing to do so. So the students and others react in a manner that hopefully with bring immediate necessary change. The “system” in turn acts—disapproving of the means, it continues to punish that reaction without altering the original cause of the reaction. This is the real issue involved in our concern over the House’s action. Will the nation, and its colleges, turn to changing that which needs to be changed or will it con tinue to turn to punishing those who are tired of waiting for change? Footnote It is time now to turn with all the purpose at our com mand to the major unfinished business of this nation. It is time to adopt strategies for action that will produce quick and visible progress. It is time to make good the promises of American democracy to all citizens—urban and rural. White and Black. Spanish-surname, American Indian, and every minority group. . . . There can be no higher priority for national action and no higher claim on the nation's conscience. _From the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. iiiiiBiHuiiiiittniiiHiviiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiwiiiiiiiiiiMHiiiiiiiiiwiiifttiiiiiiKilniiiiiin VUarner n er ... Goals Year ’68... A Beginning Towards Community Government Editor’s note: Warner Karsh ner is a former fraternity rep resentative to the Senate and is now a dormitory counselor. This article deals with a plan for setting up curriculum com mittees on the departmental level. Well, here we are again in the spring of the year standing around shouting at each other as the world comes tumbling about our ears. Does anybody recall last spring, or the spring before that? Does anybody re call anything before yesterday? What was happening before Johnson Hall, before Flemming, before ‘The War on Poverty,’ before Civil P.ights? And how long will it be before we for get today . . . ?Tomorrow? Most of us have managed to turn learning into a series of disjointed, unrelated, discon tinuous ‘experiences.’ Shall w'e start it all again in the morning? Let’s not. We’re frustrated with substituting group therapy for friendship, cathartic political action for real political change, love-ins for love. What’s possible; what can be done? A group of faculty and students have been meeting this term to map out a strategy to ward community. They have come up with the following sug gestions for action. • 1. A UO Community Goals Year. The plan is to take an academic year and focus all of our actions on the questions . . . where are we going, do we want to go there, why are we going there? The Goals Year means to include everybody that is at the University . . . faculty, staff, students, administrators. It means to ask where are we go ing individually, how can we best make use of the University community to get there. The Goals Year is not pre sented as a conference or a de bate. it is presented as a family affair, as a special time while the family is in crisis to ask yourself and the guy next to you what you’re doing and why you’re doing it. If everybody asks, nobody has to be afraid . . . we’ll all go together or we’ll not go at all. One of the ways to keep from being afraid is to keep the main point in your mind. The com munity must involve itself in a massive attention-directing campaign to make this Goals Year work. Each member of the commu nity can partake by running his own personal Goals Year pub licity campaign — the means will differ as will the individu al goals — let’s just get it out in front of us so we don’t start fearing to pop the question. There’s no real need to bring in speakers on this, let’s find out who we’ve got among the family. The goals year must be a personal responsibility to get results. Where do we do the talking? Plans are flexible at this point. The best way to shoot this down is to set it up too tight. Rather than schedule events to meet the resources, let’s open up the resources to meet the events. If somebody has something to say and wants to say it to a group let’s keep open places for that to happen when it comes up. It calls for an active role rather than passive. Where do we go from talk? • 2. Departmental Search classes of students and faculty are being formed to convene in the fall. The purpose of these classes is to discuss curriculum in terms of the kinds of goals that are being brought out by the community. A secondary purpose is to dis cuss faculty-student sharing of curriculum development respon sibilities. Curriculum develop ment is not an easy task as those students that have been involved in it can testify, but it is the basic point at which education can and is made rele vant. to the world. Here we can turn discussions on goals and educational policy into educa tional policy. It is hoped that within these courses students and faculty can develop a sense of working trust with each other and can proceed to establish student curriculum committees to aid faculty in their efforts to keep education up to date. This could be scary, but needn’t be if we keep the main point in mind: We’ve got a world that isn’t going to wait on us and we are all in equal jeopardy if we don’t keep up. It’s lime we learned to radiate that power that we have so long tried to possess. To hold it you hide it and hidden, it isn’t helping anybody, not even your self. For those of us concerned about the time element and the allocation of our own resources, the class time wil be creditable under the present SEARCH pro gram. • 3. The third and last sug gestion the study group pro poses is that the whole shebang be done under the auspices of the Center for Experimental and Innovational Education which is planned for establish ment fhis summer. This center, governed by faculty and stu dents, can provide the neutral ground and back-up functions to keep the ideas going and to settle disputes. It can also do the community wide feedback work that will be necessary to avoid duplication. The center may also provide, with the assistance of the Emer ald, campus wide communica tion on what is happening. Parts of the community have already begun to mobilize them selves to deal with this effort. Individuals in the community interested in helping to plan may contact the following per sons and/or attend the Monday night meeting at 10 p.m. in the basement of Hendricks Hall. Dan Allison—Political Science 342 3780; Cliff Breslow—CSPA 345-2470: Ed Bingham—Professor of History; Dick Eymann—Political Science Ext. 1384; Randy Farleigh—Psychology Ext 25 62; Dick Guske—CSPA 345-9858; Randy Gragg—History 345-8903 or 343-9291: Dick Jones—Journalism 343-2925; Gil Johnson—Journalism Ext. 1817 or 21 45; Bob Winger—History Ext. 1694: Jim Silver—Business Administration 747-8363; Sharyn Wisely—English 345 1137 or Ext. 1921; Warner Karshner— Psychology Ext. 1667; Phil Runkle— Professor of Psychology Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration (CASEA); John Wish —Professor of Business Administra tion (MIT); W. E. Schaffer Professor of Sociology. j Emerald Editor: | Third Motion Emerald Editor: This concerns your May 6 editorial. Actually, in the May faculty meeting, three motions were submitted on the Johnson Hall sleep-in and the composi tion of the Presidential Search Committee. You mentioned only two. All three will be consider ed by the faculty at its June meeting. The third motion asks the faculty to disassociate itself from the April 25th version of the Presidential Search Com mittee, and so inform all can didates contacted by this com mittee. You speak of . . a great need for a joint student-faculty body to develop guidelines for student participation . . and ask that such a body . . be above and separate from any consideration of stated opinion on the Search Committee or the Johnson Hall sleep-in.” Unfortunately, the events of April 25 established that stu dents could achieve their poli tical objectives by what the Fac ulty Senate correctly described as coercion and intimidation of the University community. As your own recent editorials have emphasized, this is a tactic that can be. and probably will be, repeated. Particularly if the faculty acquiesces in the de cision reached on April 25. A whole series of recent events reported in the Emerald sug gests that there serious danger of violence on this campus next year. Calm and reasoned judg ment about student involvement may well have died a silent death on April 25. But the faculty does not at present seem concerned. It is quite possible that the faculty will follow your recommenda tions at its June meeting. Unless it can be prodded awake in the meantime to what actually hap pened on April 25. Arthur I,. Thomas Associate Professor Chris J. Luneski Associate Professor * * * Illegal Ad Emerald Editor: I know that some people on campus have been irritated lately by the problems you seem to have in allocating space in the Emerald to various features. For instance, the Co-op Board meeting was reported almost a week after it took place and so much front-page space was de voted to the sleep-in that Three Days of Concern (the recent conference on Vietnam) receiv ed inadequate coverage. Mon day’s issue contains something that looks like it has also been the victim of your space prob lem—and it cannot be laid on the shoulders of the previous editor, Mr. Fancher, as the above cited incidents can; it is your problem. On page five is an ad con cerning Monday's school elec tion. I honestly believe that your staff has not meant to do anything wrong, but because of space allocation problems, they have. It is illegal to print ads concerning election issues on the day when the election for that issue is being held. I hope you can see to it that such a problem does not arise when the primary election is being held. (If you desire verification of the point of law mentioned, you can obtain it by checking with the district attorney, the secretary of state or the state attorney general.) Clark Cox Junior, Social Science Cheers for ROTC Emerald Editor: As a veteran my chest swelled with pride when I read in Sun day’s Register-Guard that the fine University of Oregon Re serve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) drill team snared first place in the Oakridge Tree Fes tival Parade. They bested such formidable competition as the Willamalane baton twirlers and the Oakridge 4-H club, who finish second and third respectively. Such training is invaluable in the development of future offi cers for the United States Army. All veterans, students, as well as the general public, should be proud of the University ROTC drill team’s splendid showing last weekend. Keep up the good work, men! Guy Strahan Junior, Liberal Arts * * * Sick University Emerald Editor: I would like to write in de fense of my father’s name, as well as that of my own. (Though I confess it makes me feel weird to triple space this as I type it.) It came as no surprise to me that two students should take pen in hand (or in this case, typewriter—no pun intended) to attack my father. No matter (Continued on page 7)
