White hats the rage
It’s the good guys that don’t go wrong. Governor
Tom McCall, in an anxious move to avoid wear
ing a Nixon black hat, has asked the State Emer
gency Board to consider cutbacks of state construc
tion projects. The projects, including a University
Behavioral Science and Education complex, were
approved by the 1969 legislature.
The sudden move to fight inflation and to com
ply with a proposed Nixon cutback of 75 per cent
for federal construction projects may keep McCall
on the Nixon bandwagon, but Oregon and its
economy may not be playing when the game is
finished.
McCall has said state construction cutbacks
would be over 20 per cent, not quite in the Nixon
range, but sign of more than token effort on the
part of Oregon to fight inflation.
That’s just fine for the national image, but Ore
gonians don’t still use one-room schoolhouses and
gallop down muddy trails. We need highways,
school buildings, and other modern conveniences
essential to a growing economy.
McCall’s method of involving Oregon in national
policy commitments leave much to be desired
when considering the details of the move.
The projects that may be cut back by the State
Emergency Board today were approved by the
state legislature after going through the normal
committee, agency, and individual department
planning procedures.
Governor McCall has since decided to reverse
the decisions made by the legislature, through ac
tion he hopes the Emergency Board will take.
However, his right to reverse legislative de
cisions is being questioned. Can the Governor de
cide to annul a legislative decision at will, after
the legal veto period has passed? An interesting
question. State Senator Edward Fadeley of Eugene
has asked state Attorney General Lee Johnson if
such a move is possible. Johnson’s opinion on the
issue may cause some lack of faith in the American
legislative system, particularly if it is determined
that political prestige has the power to reverse or
delay legislative decisions.
Maybe wearing a white hat in Washington is
the fashion, but Governor McCall should realize
a strong Oregon economy is the more practical
style in the long run.
Letters
Remain silent?
Emerald Editor:
Apparently the University as a
community of scholars dedicated
to education, i.e., the process of
training and developing one’s
knowledge, skills, mind and char
acter, cannot comment socially
and politically on the issues of
our times.
In the words of President
Clark, “the University should not
enter into questions of public
debate.” Of course not, we should
be trained in passivity and acqui
escence in the good old Ameri
can tradition of mediocrity.
He states further, “the Univer
sity should have effect on social
problems through its regular pro
cesses.” Certainly, the lecture
hall, the biology lab, and the
reserve book reading room offer
the student and scholar vast re
sources for actively combating so
cial evils—I dare say a comic
book provides greater inspiration
to social action if only because
the themes of humor are current.
I do not dispute President
Clark’s claim that a University
stance may usurp the individual’s
right of freedom of expression
and therefore, that such a stance
should be cautiously taken. Yet
when unified, massive and vocal
support for such issues as the
Vietnam moratorium and the
Delano grape boycott by the in
dividuals who comprise the Uni
versity community, is demonstrat
ed, then how long Mr. President
can the University as an insti
tution remain muffled?
How long will the demands for
social and political comment by
the University be subordinated
to the “greater issues” of fund
raising, and a right image?
Those in business, industry and
government who have been co -
opted by the powers-that-be and
hence must fall into line for the
security of their jobs and ca
reers remain silent and obedi
ent. We in the University environ
ment should have no such fears,
for we are here to learn and to
analyze the society in which we
live.
The universities in other coun
tries have almost always been
agents for social reform, or at
least the catalysts for reform on
the part the institutions of busi
ness, industry, and government
themselves. Would you have us
stagnate, Mr. President, in a satel
lite of ivory while the world
turns beneath us? We want no
Academic Curtain.
R. M. Kovak
Graduate, Political Science
Kick-out dead wood
Emerald Editor:
The article relating Mr. Mor
gan’s meeting with the Sociology
Student Union (Emerald, Oct. 2,
1969) contained reference to
Summerhill.
Mr. A. S. Neil’s laissez - faire
school in the countryside of Eng
land drew to it primarily young
people who somehow failed to
learn at more traditional schools.
That school had its tremen
dous successes and its more
questionable successes. Neil was
most delighted when one or two
students’ interest would be spark
ed, they would come to him or
one of the other faculty mem
bers, and the opportunity would
be used to inculcate some learn
ing.
But think of Neil’s great pride
upon discovering one of his non
reader boys who, after several
years of apparently doing noth
ing, was found studying a phys
ics text in his room. Summer
hill had its student government,
of course, which was a learning
experience for all the students.
But students didn’t run Sum
merhill. Mr. Neil did. Students
didn’t tell the faculty what to
teach, etc. The atmosphere was a
very congenial one in which the
students had a clear understand
ing of their position and of the
faculty’s role.
How well I remember my first
years of college and how well
qualified I was to tell the fac
ulty what, when and how to
teach .But as a student I have
always been in college to learn
from those who are supposed to
know something through previ
ous and continuous study of their
field and through actual field ex
perience.
I have expected a significant
return on my investment in time,
effort and money. I have felt I
was being short-changed in class
es where the instructor made the
“kick-off” only to let the stu
dents carry the ball for the rest
of the term.
I have also felt cheated when,
though the instructor had the
experience and supposedly had
the learning, he actually got lit
tle or nothing across to me
through lecture.
One ought not expect to hear
what he already knows or even
what he agrees with, but one
does expect to hear something
significant. A student will con
sistently learn from conscienti
ously done, well-planned assign
ments, but he hates to waste
three or four hours a week in
class just to find out what the as
signments are.
How about letting those who
know their stuff do their thing,
and concentrate on getting rid
of all the dead wood?
L. Craigstone
Moratorium points
Emerald Editor:
We wish to make three points
concerning the forthcoming Viet
nam moratorium.
1) We support the moratorium
and we will participate in the
moratorium by not conducting
classes and laboratory sessions
on the day of the moratorium.
2) We think that it is not
proper for the President of the
University to order the members
of the University community to
participate in an expression of
political views. Officially cancel
ling all classes in connection with
the moratorium would be tanta
mount to such an order. We ap
prove of President Clark’s de
cision to leave the choice of par
ticipation up to each individual,
as we believe he has done.
3) The decision by President
Clark to take no official action
with respect to the moratorium
does not in any way prevent us
as individuals from fully partici
pating in the moratorium.
W. Cadbury
Associate Professor,
English
Thomas Hovet
Head, Political Science
Department
R. S. Harris
Head, Architecture
Department
Richard Littman
Professor, Psychology
Aaron Novick
Professor, Biology
George Streisinger
Co-chairman, Biology
Department
The position and departments
are cited for purposes of identifi
cation only.
Lance Carten
Critique: International Education Center
Editors note: Lance Carden is a graduate student
in English. He volunteered to act as a counselor for
the International Education Center’s orientation pro
gram for foreign students this fall.
For many foreign students the first indication of what
to expect from America in general, and the University of
Oregon in particular, is a one week orientation during
new student week. The program, which is supposed to
help prepare foreign students to live and study here, is
run by the International Education Center (IEC), a stu
dent controlled agency of the ASUO.
In many respects, this year’s Orientation, was a success.
If 1 dwell only on the failures, it is not because I choose
to ignore the successes, but because the successes of the
program are generally recognized while the failures are
not.
It is interesting to speculate on the impression of Amer
ica which these newcomers receive. Despite the fact that
much has occured in the recent past to indicate that
America is a multidimensional society, the IEC program
gave the visitors an exceptionally one-sided view of Ameri
can life. The first scheduled activity set the pattern. It
was a trip to Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour. At Farrell's,
the serving ritual for such fancy orders is spectacular,
if eorny. A tray is hoisted onto the shoulders of two wait
ers, dressed in pseudo-Western clothes, who run with
the goodies pell-mell through the entire building accom
panied by a deafening drum roll, and finally alight at the
table which has ordered the “house specialty.”
THE AMERICAN WAY
There’s nothing wrong with visiting Farrell's (or Sam
bo’s—or McDonald's). It reflects one side of American
life, and whether it is a good or a bad side is irrelevant.
It is one-sided, however. And so were the other scheduled
off-campus events: a party, a picnic, a city tour which was
organized by the Jaycees and which introduced the for
eigners to City Hall, the Mayor, and (in one case at least)
to the local Cadillac dealership.
Besides campus and library tours, the visiting students
heard a lot of speeches. There were speeches on "Financial
Aid and Employment,” “Banking and Financial Proced
ures." “Insurance Programs and Social Security.” “Per
sonal Health Habits of Western Cultures,” and “American
Social'Culture." (The titles pretty well speak for them
selves, though some were more harmless than they sound.)
Kenneth Ghent, foreign student advisor, welcomed the
newcomers and Sonja Sweek gave a short speech which
emphasized the need for foreign students to return to
their native countries and put their talents and knowl
edge to use where they will count the most.
DISCRIMINATION AMERICAN TOO
It was left to Dominie LaRusso, a speech professor, to
discuss the subject of discrimination with the visitors
during his luncheon address on “American Social Cul
ture.” LaRusso didn't try to deny that discrimination
exists in America, but maintained that there was no more
discrimination here than abroad, and that America’s rec
ord in this regard is very enviable. He mentioned the
discrimination which met Italian immigrants when they
arrived in America, and said that the very fact that he,
the son of Italian immigrants, was now a college professor
was an indication of America’s progress.
LaRusso’s opinions about America’s social problems and
achievements are open to question, but he is to be con
gratulated on one point: he was willing to speak publicly
to foreign students about American social problems. He
was the only person during the orientation who did.
Neither LaRusso nor anyone else made any effort to
inform foreign students how to defend themselves against
prejudice. LaRusso merely reminded his audience that
they shouldn't expect to find the U.S. free of the racial
prejudices rampant throughout the world.
There was no effort to advise the newcomers, many of
them from Asia and Africa, of their rights under law —
no effort to explain the complicated and sometimes
clumsy machinery which is designed to protect those
rights. The advice to the students counselors from one
representative of the Foregin Student Office concerning
questions about private housing was to strongly recom
mend the dormitories to all foreign students.
EXPEDIENCY DOES THE JOB
Given Eugene’s general housing situation, that may or
may not be good advice; but it is certainly very expedient
advice to give a foreign student. It avoids the unpleasant
and time-consuming task of actually helping someone
who has problems finding an apartment. On April 28
Eugene passed a city-ordinance against racial discrimina
tion in housing and employment. Shouldn’t an effort to
prepare foreign students to live and study here include
at least a reference to this ordinance?
But, it will be maintained, that there were forty stu
dent volunteer counselors at the Orientation who could
have answered the questions of individual foreign stu
dents concerning such subjects. The fact is that the coun
selors (whose services cost IEC $1800 in room and board
alone) were incompetent in this regard. Picked on the
basis of their knowledge of foreign countries, languages,
and students, the counselors were overwhelmingly ig
norant and generally unconcerned about racial discrimina
tion in America. (Several of them tried to convince me
that there were no racial barriers in Eugene, especially
in housing).
Exceptions to the rule were the few returning foreign
students who attended the orientation. At first they seem
ed to be a valuable resource, but when I asked two of
them to lead a discussion of the racial problems the new
foreign students could expect to encounter, they declined,
protesting that as visitors here it was not their place to
lead such a discussion. Both of them were concerned,
however, and expressed their disappointment in this as
pect of the Orientation Program.
HARD-SELL—POOR-SELL
What can or should be done to improve the program?
I’m not sure because I am not familiar with the IEC and
its operation. There are a few suggestions inherent in
some of the comments I have made, but my comments
probably don’t go to the heart of the problem and the
real reasons for the artificiality of the orientation.
Like many of the counselors, I was selected because I
had lived and studied abroad. When I volunteered, I had
no idea of the structured nature of the program. Through
out the week. I had an uneasy suspicion that I had mis
takenly volunteered for the USIA or the Peace Corps.
F ortunately, as far as I know, there is no connection be
tween either ASUO or IEC and these agencies. Is there
any reason why the Foreign Student Orientation program
should mimic their hard-sell techniques and bureaucratic
approach? The mythic, stereotyped America is well rep
resented abroad. There is no good reason for reinforcing
that myth during an orientation program here The for
eign student (and the United States) will be J,est served
by an orientation program which shows him and prepares
him for the truth.