Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 13, 1969)
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. PAUL BRAINERD Editor Les Blumenthal News Editor Tom Kilpatrick Advertising Manager ROBB MILLER Business Manager Sue Heinz Managing Editor Ellen Emry National Advertising Manager Rick Fitch Academic Affairs Editor Gil Johnson Salt Editor John Junkins Night Editor Steven Smith Editorial Page Editor Ron Eachus Administrative Affairs Editor Wandal.vn Rice Student Affaiirs Editor Stan Horton Sports Editor Laurie Padilla Night Editor Cindy Boydstun Photo Editor Chris Houglum Entertainment Editor University of Oregon, Eugene, Tuesday, May 13, 1969 Sadler guilty of misrepresentation House Bill 1880, the campus disruption bill, has been the subject of heated debate for some weeks now. Un fortunately, the intentions of the bill leave little room for compromise; less room for fence sitting on the part of student leaders. In the May 8 letters column of the Emerald, Russell Sadler, chairman of the Inter-Institutional Committee on Higher Education, attacked legislative counsel Eric Lindauer for “misrepresenting, apparently intentionally, my views of the bill.” Sadler, in his letter, asserted that he did not support 1880, as Lindauer earlier suggested, and listed several reasons why he did not. Sadler’s teestimony before the committee, however, in dicates that he did support the bill at that time. Sadler, not Lindauer, misrepresented the testimony. As chairman of ISCOHE, Sadler represents the position of all students within the seven state system colleges and universities. Yet in his testimony, Sadler made it clear that ISCOHE never held formal discussions on the bill; that he talked informally with only five of the seven in stitutions; and even then, that student leaders had regis tered little opposition to the bill. This is in direct contrast to the nearly unanimous testi mony of student leaders against the bill in subsequent legislative hearings. Sadler apparently equated his per sonal opinions with the opinions of the seven state schools he represents. It appears to the Emerald that ISCOHE made little at tempt to formalize a stand on 1880 and that the prepara tion for legislative hearings was confined to personal re search on the part of Sadler. Ilis reservations against 1880 were confined to his fear that the bill was moving through the legislature too quickly. “I would hope that you (the legislature) would help me sell my constituency on this bill,” he said, “by slowing it down sufficiently so this doesn’t look like it’s being stampeded through the legislature. That’s the kind of be havior that raises questions, legitimate questions, from people who do not know the details. Hold it open — long enough to be circumspect, and yet not so much that it should fail in the crush of adjournment.” In opening his testimony Sadler introduced opposition statements to the proposal as views “which may not be my own. but which I have an obligation to present.” Further, Sadler appears to be presenting two complete and diverse points of view to the two different commu nities. To the students Sadler wrote, “I am opposed to the bill because 1) of the sneaky way it passed the House. 2) it is sloppily and imperfectly drafted, 31 is not necessary. 4) invites political abuse of its intended purpose. 5) and it is an affront to the students, faculties and institutional presidents of this state." To the legislature Sadler said “We see a minimum, if any impact at all, on freedom of expression or freedom of speech, and with a circumspect Governor, we don't even see it being trotted out as a threat . . . “Now you can say that's comprising a position and you would be absolutely right” Sadler has compromised his position: not only with re gard to 1880. but in regard to his chairmanship of a com mittee that supposedly represents the opinions of over 50,000 students in the state system of higher education. — It’s quite true — A mandate from the people By MIKE O’BRIEN Now I know how De Gaulle feels. And, like De Gaulle, I don’t feel that I made a mistake, but that 2199 out of 2,202 voters were wrong. That is to say, I received only three votes for student body president in the primaries. Actually, since I voted for myself, I received only two. This isn’t as bad as it sounds since, unbelievably, I didn’t come in altogether last. 1 know tnat sounds like saying “a little bit p r e g nant,” but the fact is that I actually tied for last with another ticket. And, since there were two people on that ticket, and I’m sure they voted for each other, I ac tually got more votes. Sort of. I asked a somewhat be fuddled Emerald staffer to figure out my percentage of the votes, and she came up with .0766. This was inter esting, because the IBM printout sneet gave me .id. bince 1 want every voice to be heard and believed equally (Is that liberal enough for a few votes?) I’ve averaged these two figures and come up with .1033. It’s altogether possible that some people will say that averaging out a couple of figures is a foolish way to arrive at my percentage of the vote, but I can say from personal ex perience that it’s really quite valid. Once I stood with one foot in a bed of burning em bers, and the other in a block of ice. The story about how this particular situation came about is pretty interesting, but the point is that on the average, I felt fine. I'd like to mention one final interesting thing about the two independent votes I re ceived. So far. I’ve found five people who said they cast them. Now, as for my plans for the future. Rather than let my two voters down, I have decided, at great personal inconvenience, to leave my hat in the ring. After all, my minority de serves a voice, too. I have, however, made a major change in my campaign. I now have a running mate. Frankly. I would just as soon have a running nose, but it seems to be the thing to do. Also, it’s a way to get one more vote. My vice presidential candidate’s name is Les Blumenthal, and he describes himself as a radical conservative with leftist and rightist leanings. He wants it made clear, however, that he is not a middle-of-the-road candidate. The reason Les and I have teamed up is that he received two votes for something or other in the primary (he’s even vaguer about this than I am) and we figure that our five votes are a clear mandate from five people. After talking it over, we decided the reason we lost was that we hadn’t kissed enough babies. In order to remedy this situation, we’ve set up a schedule so that any baby who wants to be kissed can have her w'ish. Our schedule is as follows. Monday through Friday of this week, one or the other of us will probably be at the Emerald office at some time or other. If anyone desiring this service goes to the office and neither of us is there, we’ve fixed it so you won’t be disappointed. We’ve each kissed a number of 3x5 index cards which the secretary will give you on request. It should go without saying that we prefer our babies to be 18 or above. And, being politicians, we have no preference as to blondes, brunettes or redheads. Next week, things might be different, but that’s how it stands now'. Our next vote-getting gimmick has to do with our last names. Obviously, O’Brien and Blumenthal are going to appeal to a couple of pretty strong minorities. In order to appeal to even more, we have, for this week at least, amended our names to read Pierre O'Brien Polanski and Mohammed Blumenthal-Smith. (When you write us in on the ballot, though, Mike O’Brien and Les Blumenthal will be sufficient. The people who count the ballots have as much difficulty reading as Emerald staffers do.) Our final appeal to the voters is a truly revolutionary one. Les and I realize that near ly everyone covets the pomp and circumstance of public office. So, in order to cater to this desire, we’ve decided that after you write me in for president and Les for vice president, you can put your own name down for second vice president. If we win, I’m not quite clear on what we’ll do with all our second vice presidents, but we ll work something out. One possibility is to organize them into a sort of flying squad capable of putting on instant rallies. Then we can rent our squad out to groups that are concerned about things, but to small to do anything about them. Above all, remember our ringing sloagan — A vote for O’Brien-Blumenthal is a vote . . . probably. L Emerald Editor: On B.S.U. statement Emerald Editor: I feel it necessary to clarify my statements as quoted from the Convocation rally by May 5th’s Emerald so there will be no misunderstanding of my in tentions. First of all, I do not sup port the philosophy of problem solution suggested by the BSU. In its statement of last week; I support the philosophy of the Convocation, which is based on the belief that a system of ne gotiation can be the most effec tive means of bettering a uni versity. I am aware of and sympa thize with the circumstances that foster an active and imme diate approach, such as the BSU stated. This is precisely why I came to regard the Con vocation as a last chance for us to prove that we, as reasoning and intelligent individuals, are capable of examining and under standing the problems of people from different and unfortunate environments; and beyond this, we must prove that we are will ing to do something, to commit ourselves to working for solu tions in a world that desper ately needs for people to care. Secondly, I would like to re emphasize the fact that students must remember that the com munication and the involvement or uninvolvement last week must be aimed at supporting people foremost; all issues must revolve around this support. Chris Czarnowsky Soph., English * * * Write congressmen Emerald Editor; On the front page of last Sunday's Oregonian an article mentioned that the Nixon Ad ministration anticipated the re tirement of Gen. Hershey. Included in the news release was a proposal from the White House "to change draft laws to provide for a lottery to select draftees—and then from a sin gle age group, the 19-year-olds.” We’ve long protested the pres ent inequities in the Selective Service System under Hershey. Every male student has ex perienced the anxieties and un certainties of the draft. If the lottery proposal should pass the present age group of 20 to 25 would be draft-exempt barring a major war. Do you somehow feel in agreement with such a lottery proposal? We should all make an active effort to see that the lottery becomes a reality. An old but infrequently used means to participate in politics is to write your congressman and urge him to support the meas ure. Don't let your representative guess how you feel on this is sue. Tell him! Imagine the ef fect upon a congressman of a large number of letters en - dorsing the lottery proposal. Letters coming from his local constituents cannot help but in fluence him and his hopes for reelection. The U.S. Congressman for Lane County is John Dellen back, 520 Willamette St., Eu gene. What is your congress man’s address? Scott Taylor Sen., Pol Sci. Curt Smith Jr., History * * * Attacks committee Emerald Editor: I am occasionally disappoint ed by but rarely moved to op pose the efforts of student gov ernment. However, on behalf of 450 students who have competed as University representatives on club sports this past year. I must protest at the destruction of the program at the hands of the fiscal committee of the ASUO Senate. Last year this program was granted by the Senate approx imately $20,000 and involved ac tively every student who wish ed to participate. This year the committee in what one can only presume is ignorance of the values of such a program, have offered $3,500. This amount is approximately the same as the estimated budget for each of the two largest sports. As coach of the rugby team, I can testify to the participa tion of the 60 students who reg ularly gave up their spare time to practice with no reward ex cept for the opportunity to com pete and associate with stu - dents of other institutions. The money that was made available covered travel and ac commodation costs of minimum standards. If it is considered that as coach I have a financial interest in the continuation of this program, it should be pointed out that all coaching services are voluntary and un paid. What is particularly disturb ing is the fact that on the ba sis of funds provided over the past 10 years, contracts have already been made with other institutions for the coming year. WTith no funds available, our program must now be aban - doned. We cannot ask the stu dents to add further financial sacrifice to their present com mitments. I would urge the appropriate committee to reconsider this de cision. After 10 years, has this program achieved nothing that it should be removed so sud denly? I would suggest there are few programs that have been more successful and involved active ly such a number which has grown consistently each year. We ask no more than the op portunity to continue to serve students. Bruce Howe Rugby Coach
