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)