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
RICH JERNSTEDT
Business Manager
University of Oregon, Eugene, Thursday, November 21, 1968
Let’s Hear
The Other Side
You read in the commercial newspapers and hear on
the radio about student activism, student revolt, student
power, and, yes, even student obscenity.
And what you read was said by the governor, or the
chancellor, or a legislator, or maybe the president of one
of the institutions. Sometimes, when the whim strikes the
editors of the commercial papers, you may find—down
in the last three inches of an article, below the statements
of the governor, the chancellor, the university president,
and the legislator—you may find some comments by a
student.
What demonstrates how little power students actually
hold is the fact that student opinion is held in such low
regard that the press rarely bothers to report it.
IIow many times have you seen student comments lead
ing off a story on a major student incident? How many
times, in fact, have you seen students quoted regarding
student issues?
During the Democratic Convention, few newspapers
covering the street battles interviewed students involved
in the demonstrations. The ideas and opinions of the
students at Columbia and Berkeley received little room
in the papers when student unrest prevailed at these in
stitutions earlier this year.
And when all this fuss began over obscenity at the
University, did the newspapers and radio stations come
down to get the student side of things? Well, the Register
Guard did run a four page feature on the Emerald a month
after the paper printed “offensive” words, even quoting
the staff on the last page. Tuesday’s Guard printed a story
with ASUO President Dick Jones comment’s on the issue,
after it spent half the story writing about what University
President Charles Johnson didn’t say.
That of, course, is considerably more than other com
mercial media around the state have done. The journalistic
creed of printing all sides of a question seems to have
been amended to add. “unless one side represents student
views.”
So the readers and listeners of commercial newspapers
and radio stations in this state, by and large, believe that
their tax money is going to support “filth” at the Uni
versity. Many readers, in addition, may believe Berkeley,
Columbia, this University and others are overrun by radi
cal students bent on destroying the institutions. And few
people outside the academic community have any idea
why students act the way they do.
We thus suggest that the next time someone issues a
charge against the University, or students in it, the com
mercial media seek out statements by the accused parties
and release both the charge and the defense at the same
time. That's only fair.
r
. i1 J ■
in—r?TT
i
i—n
Durin’ this transition period, the Yew-nited States will be
speakin' with one voice . . . y’hear?"
MMaroiMMM:' in iiiraiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraiiiiiiiimmiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiilin
oC. ^t)anieiion
Illll!llllllllllllllll«llill!l!ll!1lil!inni!llllllllllllll!«li!i:i!iill':ill!>!ini:i!i,ll!:ii:!!!!! ili
Students Must Sell Movement
To All Parts of Society
Editor’s note: J. L. Daniels-on, a citizen of
Eugene, in the following advises students to
attack the establishment from all sides.
The youth of the nation have, as it were, a
product to sell, their moral, legal, and political
judgement. But they have been brainwashed by
the middle class philosophy which deems it right
to make only one attempt to sell a dissident
point of view, and then to retire politely. Youth
forgets, however, that a good salesman never
considers the effort completed until he has ex
hausted all the means available. Youth groups
approach their problems from only one or two
directions and sell only to those who are ready
to buy just this particular commodity—largely,
to other young people.
A resistance group marches to the draft board
and several members turn in or burn their Se
lective Service Cards. They do this once, twice,
a thousand -times but it makes no difference—
they've been only convincing people that they
(the youths) are sold on the value of their
action, and that’s all they achieve. People can
easily write them off as “young and foolish,”
and forget the whole affair.
What the young could do, if they expect to
have any effect, is to follow through, attack the
dilemma from another side, to force the involve
ment of larger segments of the community, and
remind them that such problems as an immoral
conscription system are not just problems to
long-haired youth, but also to crew-cut and con
scripted youth, to foreign victims of our military
machine, and to a desensitized, dehumanized, and
sold-out society.
Why not, for example: (1) make public the
names of the Vietnam war dead from the city,
county, or state draft or (2) make public the
names and occupations of the draft board mem
bers who selected (sentenced) these men for
combat.
fTTlIllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliilllliMiitiiiiiiiiiiitmniiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiniii
Neither list is secret, though it may take a
real sleuth to gather some of the information.
Perhaps this would bring it home to the citizenry
that this product which youth is advertising —
humaneness and conservation of human life —
might be of some value. And perhaps people
would like to know what sort of person acts on
a draft board, what he sells, where he lives, etc.
With the public thus informed, the individual
might be forced to face the consequences of his
choice to serve the military machine. It would
be brought home to such a person if his customers
began to boycott his business, or if his dealings
with other businesses became less congenial.
He might be forced to remember his moral cir
cumstance if his neighbors suddenly ceased to
greet him—to smile and wave when they en
countered him on the street. This would not be
petty vengeance aimed at local draft boards, but
rather, a fully legal move aimed at creating some
friction and discomfort for these boards. Obvi
ously, if the national conscription system does
not function well on the local level—the individ
ual level—it may not function at all.
This is an example of a possibly effective sec
ond step in this "sale” of moral judgement. One
cannot, with a falsely British schoolboyish sense
of fair play, make one attempt, or one kind of
attempt to reform, and then retire quietly, ac
cepting the slapped hand that society administers.
It is true that violence serves no purpose until
everything else is exhausted, and he who first
resorts to violence loses the argument.
But by forcing society to deal with its acts
as the collective action of individual people, per
haps the awareness of personal responsibility for
institutions’ actions will help to bring about the
changes needed in those institutions and in that
society. As long as the purveyors of old and
immoral institutions can hide their responsibility
behind those institutions, we are stuck with such
customs as the draft, et. al.
mniniiniiiiiitiiiniiiifT
Emerald Editor:
UlliliUllliiiUUllililiiUl
All letters to the editor must be
typewritten and triple spaced.. Letters
must not exceed 300 words and must
be signed in ink, giving the class and
major of the writer. Those dealing
with one subject and pertaining to
the University or Eugene community
will be given preference. The Emer
ald reserves the right to edit letters
for style, grammar, punctuation and
potentially libelous content. Letters
not meeting these criteria and those
which are mimeographed or other
wise obvious duplicates will be re
turned.
Gruesome Growers
Emerald Editor:
Isn't youthful enthusiasm won
derful? Just think: all of those
line young people going to such
lengths to right the beastly
wrongs perpetrated by the Grape
Growers (oh, fie!).
The boycotters (huzzah!) have
indeed at least come up with an
invincible plan to smite the
fiendish conspiracy of those
Gruesome Grape Growers. You
see, if the small farmers are
driven out of existence, no prob
lem will exist, because no jobs
will exist. That w a y welfare
takes over, and the taxpayer—
pardon, the state will pay their
wages. Too, they will get to
know their earstwhile employ
ers better, since they also will
be forming the same lines. Now
isn’t that the most logical plan
of attack? (Besides which, of
course,, it needs no facts.) Oh
rah. you Benevolent Boycotters.
I am astounded that such glori
ous and righteous ingenuity has
arisen from the ranks of the
humble.
But lo! a problem: what
about those other nasty grapers
—the big producers who sell to
the wineries—yet untouched by
the hand of right. Ah, the logi
cal solution: boycott the wicked
wineries Buy not of California
wine! That should go over big
on campus.
Oh. press on, you gallant
boycotters! Perhaps some day
you will find your raisin d'etre
(sic). Maybe then you can strike
a blow against the perverted
peach people.
Mike Grube
Junior, Math.
* * *
‘Financial Suicide*
Emerald Editor:
For those ambitious demon
strators who actually feel they
are going to be doing a great
good by presenting their un
eaten grapes to Dick Romm on
Friday, it would be wise to con
sider that action.
Let us say that a small Cali
fornia farmer made the mistake
of deciding to attempt grape
production on twenty acres of
new land. Grapes take from five
to ten years to reach produc
tivity, and such land rarely
costs less than $2000 per acre.
So, with $40,000 tied up in the
land, and a nominal $1100 per
acre per year to cover planting,
fertilizing, spraying, cultivating,
irrigation, pruning, property
taxes, and hopefully few other
things if he is lucky, we can
assume that the farmer has only
invested $140,000 by the time
his first crop is ready for har
vest. But.
The big production farmers,
who rarely have trouble getting
their grapes picked, sold their
grapes to the wineries before
they even existed—at a comfort
able profit. The small farmer
then turns to the open market,
but bovcotters have made grape
prices so low and picking wages
so high (pickers in California
now make at least 35c per hour
more than many workers in
Oregon) that it would be finan
cial suicide to attempt harvest
and sale of the grapes. The
farmer may do one of two
things. He may let the grapes
rot, or pull up the vineyards.
Thus occurs the demise of
many a vineyard. The big pro
ducers don’t get hurt and the
small farmer is eliminated. Isn’t
it wonderful that the boycott
does so much good, by eliminat
ing the jobs for the pickers
(and the small farmers).
No need to worry about high
er wages at all, because the jobs
won't exist. That way, they can
turn to welfare and unemploy
ment. Won’t that be groovy?
Then you and I and the state
can all pay their wages.
Jim Dodge
Senior, General Science
* af* *
Re C - - - P - - -
Emerald Editor:
Re: Mr. Charles Potterf
I’m glad to see that someone
gives ad--- about all the c - - -
going on at the University. I.
however, feel that in spite of
the radical elements, ”sh
heads”, and the “g--d-- state
of affairs”, I am receiving an
education of which I can be
proud. I also feel that radiator
service owners are overpaid.
Robert Ousterhout
Freshman
Liberal Arts
Followed Advice
Emerald Editor:
I followed your advice and
called the Register-Guard to
find out what the Wizard of ID
said. Some editor down there
said, “As I’ve said to about a
dozen other people this morn
ing, we didn’t take the words
out to tell you over the tele
phone. We took them out to
take them out.”
Please, would someone come
through for me and tell me
what sort of “filth” and “smut”
is in common use out there in
the real world?
Ronald Stenkamp
Junior, Chemistry
Hiding Behind Rights
Emerald Editor:
The University has been re
ceiving threats that unless some
thing is done about the dis
tribution of publications con
taining filth and obsenity on
the campus, the State Legisla
ture may sanction and place re
strictions on the University.
It has been argued that if
these restrictions are placed on
the University, the rights con
cerning freedom of speech and
the press will be violated. This
could or could not be true de
pending upon the meaning of
freedom of press and speech.
If freedom of speech a n d
press means the freedom to
speak and print criticisms, ex
pressions, or grievances that an
individual might have, then
these proposed restrictions
would not violate free speech
or press.
Gov. Tom McCall has stated
that if restrictions were placed
on the University, the Ohio
State type restrictions would
be followed. The Ohio restric
tion states: . . these regula
tions are not intended in any
way to discourage or restrict
freedom of speech, including
criticism, expression or griev
ances or petition for redress of
wrong, real or fancied . .
This does not prohibit the free
dom of expression of ones ideas
and grievances.
If however, one defines free
dom of speech and press as be
ing able to say or print any
thing including obscene and vul
gar words and illustrations, then
yes, the freedom of speech and
press would be violated. That
however, won’t cause tears in
my eyes!
If someone has an idea he
(Continued on page 7)