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 ROBB MILLER
Editor Business Manager
Les Blumenthal Sue Heinz
News Editor Managing Editor
University of Oregon, Eugene, Wednesday, May 21, 1969
.. ~
Emerald Editor:
UUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllUJ
Your problem
Emerald Editor:
This past week when the
ASUO budget was released in
the Daily Emerald I noticed
just how curiously indicative
the budget priorities were of
our American society. At the
very top of the list was the ath
letic department with a near
phenomenal $249,000. Athlet
ics. exercise and athletes are fine
but surely all those jocks are
more than comfortable with
their “astroturf” and the $400,
000 it cost to install largely on
contributions from “well wish
ing” alumni.
Just the idea of the athletic
department receiving all that
cash over anything else brings
to mind the absurdity of an
other American priority: the
constant paranoia over hair and
the ignorance and apathy over
the American ghetto, which is
a hell-on earth for millions of
our brothers.
The ASUO budget shows
about as much social, political
and moral responsibility and
sense as hanging Christmas tree
ornaments on Boulder Dam be
fore it collapses. What are they
doing in the athletic depart -
inent with the $70,000 for tow
els. having them cleaned in
Hong Kong?
Just the slightest, most su
perficial mental investigation
will reveal to even the most
dense just how ridiculous this
expenditure is, and that it could
certainly be spent on something
much more socially, politically
and morally significant than the
athletic department.
I can see the ASUO establish
ing some kind of Poverty Re
search Program where such ex
penditures would be spent to
help those of the State of Ore
gon and in the country not for
tunate enough to experience a
university situation, much less
the pleasures of an athletic de
panmeni.
The money could be used to
finance scholarships directly
through the ASUO or to send
University students into the
ghetto or other poverty areas
to help the poor.
Few of us as students of the
University ever get the chance
to directly help our brothers in
the ghetto, we have all too lit
tle money, time or guts to ex
perience or give our attention
to such an environment.
An ASUO Poverty Research
Program or other closely relat
ed programs within the ASUO
could serve as an excellent op
portunity for us as supposedly
socially, politically and moral
ly responsible entities to do
something about one of the
very things that could destroy
the university along with the
rest of our society.
Come on now! Which seems
most important, a lot of jock’s
clean towels and fancy equip
ment or a response (your re
sponse) to our most pressing so
cial problem (your problem,
brother)?
Rod McCall
Junior,
Architecture
Kirby writes
Emerald Editor:
The letter of mine printed in
the Emerald May 8 was meant
to inspire those in favor of
abortion to voice their beliefs
and to acquaint them with the
sort of irrationality they would
come up against in the opposi
tion. It was also intended as a
catalyst to action during a pe
tition-signing and letter-writing
campaign being waged here in
support of the Roberts Bill.
Unfortunately, it was not
printed until the bill had al
ready lost in the Oregon legis
lature.
One “right-thinking” Oregon
senator did actually say that
any woman who wanted an
abortion deserved to die.
Ed Fadeley seemed to think
the bill oppressive because it
would have allowed the indivi
dual woman free choice in the
question of abortion. One wom
an very much against the bill
thought that it would have al
lowed her husband and her doc
tor to force an abortion on her
because their signatures would
have been required for her to
get one, after she had made the
original choice.
Of course, under the Roberts
bill, as now, a doctor may ad
vise a woman to abort if her
health would be endangered by
bearing the child. She still
would have the choice to re
fuse abortion and risk her own
life in childbirth.
Those are some examples of
how the opposition to abortion
reform thinks. Again, I was
and am in favor of legal abor
tion. I am pleased that so many
responded so clearly to my first
letter.
With enough support and ac
tion in the next two years, per
haps such a bill can be passed
in the next session of the Ore
gon Legislature.
Patsy Kirby
Sick
Emreld Edutor:
Kris Hoegluhm dropps names
and welds he can't evun sppel.
Hirtz hurts. Hurt feles grate.
Sum day he shuld here the man
whoose name he missppelss.
Mississippi John Hurt wood de
lite ole Kris. I’m shure of it.
Ashun Studese
Junior
Stven Zukhemun
‘Students unite!’
Emerald Editor:
Until recently, the most press
ing business for the true radi
cal on our campus was to rid
this University of professors
who propagandize rather than
teach. Thus, the Committee to
Encourage Professors Using
Propaganda Techniques to Leave
Campus and Teaching
(CEPUPTLCT) was formed.
This committee is truly deserv
ing of student support.
However, it is clearly the case
of radicals of good will must al
so turn their attention to ano
ther serious problem on the
University campus.
The issue is that of bringing
an early end to student gov
ernment. Our student “leaders"
and those who would be our
leaders make it ever so clear
that they are a luxury we can
no longer afford.
Think for a moment of the
possible reduction in tuition or
the funds that could be given
to the soealled deprived if
there were no student govern
ment to support. Therefore, the
Committee for an Early End to
Student Government (CEESG)
is now being formed.
I wish to urge all who care
to do their very best to support
the aims of both the above com
mittees. To borrow a little of
the surplus value of the late
Prof. Marx, may I also suggest
that students would have noth
ing to lose but their chains.
They have Indeed, a world to
win.
Students of our campus,
unite!
Barry Boyer
Grad., Economics
and Business
one opinion —— --
odds and ends
_ - - — —— — arattan he ran 6
Senate Minority Leader Dirkson’s pontification
concerning the “sanctity of the Court” during the
Fortas episode amazed this observer.
Granted, the Justice was in error, but Senator
Dirksen was the last person- I’d expected to be
morally outraged by a conflict of interest. Asked
last year why International Harvester, P a b s t
Brewing, Pepsi Cola, National Lock, Panhandle
Eastern Pipe Line, International Paper, and a
dozen other giant firms, regulated by or doing
business with the Federal Government, happened
to travel to Peoria, Illinois to retain his law firm,
Dirksen replied, “None of your business.”
Slush Fund
It’s noteworthy that Senator Packwood has so
far escaped critical comment concerning the $40,
000 “communications fund” being raised in his
benait. a similar scneme got
Senator Charles Percy in so
much hot water he had to
abandon it.
It will be interesting to
see which prominent O r e
gonians (and their wives,
sons, daughters, in-laws,
nephews, nieces, grandchil
dren, and employees) make
contributions of $100 each,
the tentative limit on indi
vidual gifts.
The dangers to the public
interest in such a plan are
obvious, and protection
against them will be difficult at best. Unless
Senator Packwood is extremely careful, he will
have the stigma of a “slush fund’’ to contend
with.
Free Warheads
Nearly 6.6 billion dollars may seem like a lot
of money for the “thin” Safeguard System now
being debated in Congress, but it’s actually
cheap when you consider that the Defense De
partment gets the nuclear warheads free.
In Congressional testimony and in Pentagon
press releases, Under secretary Packard has put
the “Department of Defense investment” in the
Safeguard over the next six years at 6.6 billion.
He didn't mention that this is without war
heads. Those will cost the Atomic Energy Com
mission 1.2 billion to produce, but the loss is
absorbed by the AEC budget.
It appears that the Administration is playing
budget games as a hedge against the expected
cost overrun of the system. However, if the 100
per cent cost overrun of the C5A troop transport
plane is any indication, a measly 1.2 billion isn’t
going to hide it.
Dubious Cure
Last week, Eric Hoffer described to a Con
gressional subcommittee the sort of men capable
of ending student violence and urban riots.
“You need chancellors of universities and may
ors of cities who will get up in the morning and
spit on their hands and say, ‘Who am I going
to kill today?’ These are the people who will kill
you.” No doubt it is this enlightened philosophy
that won him his place on the National Commis
sion on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.
Two Steps Back
Reduction of the Job Corps by 20,000 men has
satisfied at least one group. Building trade unions
have always claimed a “lack of qualified appli
cants” for their apprenticeship programs, and
hundreds of locals in the country remain lily
white as a result.
Now that the Corps will be training that many
less masons, carpenters, painters, and the like,
the building trade unions can simply point to
the reduction as continued proof of their claim.
Obscenity Note
When Ralph Ginzberg was sentenced to five
years imprisonment for the way he advertised
Eros, I thought we had reached the ends of ir
rationality. I was wrong.
President Nixon is asking Congress to approve
five-year sentences and $50,000 fines for mailing
to people under 18 anything dealing with a “sex
ual subject in a manner unsuitable for young
people.” Second offenses will bring ten years in
jail and $100,000 fines.
Of course, local juries will decide what an
“unsuitable manner” is. A barbaric measure like
this may slow down “obscenity,” but I doubt if
it will teach young people about reasoning out
a punishment to fit the “crime.”
Jules Feiffer
TWS'MX
(r'.PLS
Af?T
tmcw
TO l
HOMEY I
fm I
HAWP50H5
m
m
mmep
mm ,
61R16- j
me ,,
WITH
EWk litv
mrneti
yte
SEX£S
!
& w
To BT
mm
mvn
FltOR
LOkPW
IT