Letters
Desire vs. need
Emerald editor:
In the perspective of the over
riding issues of conscience and
events which face us today, the
small personal tragedy or disap
pointment seems out of place.
But something happened to me
today on campus which I think is
important, and which seems to
me to have ramifications beyond
the particular event.
Tonight, while I was at a class
in the conference room of the
Bean Dormitory Complex, my
English bicycle was taken—that
is, it had disappeared when I sud
denly felt a need to check on it
about 8 p.m. in the evening.
I had left it locked, under cover
next to one of the men’s dormi
tories, and was really upset to
find it gone.
It isn’t really the fact that the
bicycle is gone so much as the
realization that probably whoever
took it either for a prank, or be
cause they saw it and wanted it.
I have had the bicycle for sev
eral years including the two years
that I spent in Vancouver, Cana
da, and I used to ride it down
town into the city “slum,” where
I often parked it, locked, in an
alleyway, where anyone of the
many drunks and poor could have
taken it and hocked it for mon
ey they probably needed.
The fact that no one disturbed
the bicycle there, but that some
one from an essentially middle
class university has stolen it dis
turbes me.
The issue seems to be centered
around desire rather than need;
how can we orient our collective
social concerns outward into the
community and the world when
we are not able to exist satisfac
torily within our own University
community?
Constance Jump
2130 Hilyard St.
Athletic plot?
Emerald editor:
There are those people on cam
pus who would like to see inter
collegiate sports, for the U of 0
abolished. Some of these people
are dedicated to the quest of
knowledge and some are dedi
cated to changing the status quo.
Len Cassanova and his athletic
stooge board are working hard
for the demise of U of O inter
collegiate athletics. How else
could you explain keeping two
coaches with the worst major col
lege coaching records in the
U.S.?
Oh! Yes, you are supposed to
build character not worry about
winning. What type of character
can be built from participation on
a consistantly losing team? The
U of 0 can do a better job of
building character in a classroom
on participating in such events
as the Vietnam Moratorium.
Back to banning sports which
right now might not be such a
bad idea. Pseudo Coach Frei,
upon winning a squeeker from
Washington State promptly gave
the players a day off. Most coach
es even at the high school level,
would have had a hard knock
practice, after such a close game,
to iron out faults that obviously
showed up. What happened next?
The upset loss to San Jose State,
and now, the fiasco at Air Force.
How about laying off the rest of
the season Coach Frei while
someone else tries to make up
for your mistakes!
Belko like his counterpart on
TV is the laughing stock of the
coast. His coaching ability is
practically nill and his lack of
team control is notorious. Belko
has had more lousy seasons than
any other major college coach
and yet he still hangs on. They
fired Bilko on TV for a lousy
season, why didn’t they fire Belko
of the U of Oregon? Is this
another part of the plot to get
rid of athletics at the University?
If the events that are happen
ing now keep up, then the Uni
versity will have to do one of
two things: drop athletics or drop
the coaches and get someone here
who will fire a little spirit and
imagination into the players and
fans.
Jim Phillips
Graduate Student,
Education
Student deferments
We are all apathetic cop-outs.
We rail against the war and the
involuntary servitude forced upon
this country’s youth, yet we
smugly accept and even fight for
student deferments.
This type of deferment is a bla
tent example of social partiality.
We willingly shift the major por
tion of the responsibility for ac
tion from our shoulders to the
shoulders of others, whom, for
reasons of heritage or environ
ment are less able to handle them.
We are in our apathy, taking an
active part in class oppression.
The draft is now “zeroing in”
on the 19-year-olds, whom, for
the most part, haven’t had a
chance to become fully aware of
what is going on.
This sure takes a lot of pres
sure off our heads. Aren’t we
lucky.
Tom Tvedten
Senior, English
one opinion —
II. nixon and the hungry
. cfratten heamd
Editors note: this is the second part of a five
part analysis of President Richard Nixon.
Kearns is a junior majoring in history at the
University.
Throughout his campaign, Richard Nixon spoke
at length about the needs of the “forgotten Ameri
cans,” and of all the truly wonderful things he
was going to do for them as President. It can now
be safely said that when he talked about these for
gotten folks he didn’t have in mind the millions
of Americans who are chronically hungry.
In January of this year, the Nixon Administra
tion increased the funds allotted for food programs
in the leftover Johnson budget for fiscal 1970 by
only 15 million dollars, from 549 to 564 million.
This pitiful addition was made despite the fact
that only 44 per cent of the chronically hungry
people in this country are now covered by the food
stamp or surplus commodity programs. Further,
this pinchpenny increase was not actually for
food, but for nutritional education programs, of
little use to the eight million people who need
but don’t get assistance. In addition, no cuts were
proposed in the 4.5 billion farm price support
programs, indicating that the Nixon administration
planned to spend eight times more on making food
scarce than it would on feeding the hungry.
ATTACKS INCREASE
Senator George McGovern (D-S.D.), the most
vocal proponent in the Senate of a vast expansion
in U.S. food programs, attacked the Nixon increase.
He immediately set off a tour of slums in the Dis
trict of Columbia, and showed the accompanying
reporters a cross section of the District’s hungry
who have inadequate food supplements from the
government.
Completely embarrassed by the adverse pub
licity McGovern’s tour generated, Nixon on May 7
upped the ante another 270 million for the second
half of fiscal 1970, and had the audacity to declare
the moment had come “to put an end to hunger
in America for all time.” Beyond 1970, Nixon
promised the administration would increase the
food program another one billion dollars, and give
families of four whose monthly incomes are under
30 dollars, 100 dollars of free food stamps a month.
The 270 million, of course, was a slap in the
face for the hungry; divided among the 14 million
hungry people in this country, it comes to 20
dollars annually. Even the promised one billion
wouldn’t do the job compared to the need. Begin
ning in fiscal 1971 (Nixon didn’t say what the hun
gry were to eat in the interim), 2.5 million persons
could be added to the food programs, leaving 5.5
million people still uncovered. One hundred dol
lars in free food stamps a month for a family of
four would give each member 25 cents to purchase
each meal.
FREE STAMPS
Obviously, the Nixon proposal was completely
inadequate, and talk of ending hunger through it
was cruel and deceptive. Senator McGovern count
ered the President’s proposal with a bid to include
all the hungry in food programs, at a total cost of
three billion dollars. His bill would give 125 dol
lars of free stamps a month to families with
monthly incomes of less than 60 dollars, and would
make participation in the programs mandatory for
all counties by 1971, something the Nixon plan
overlooked.
'Jcfnitasieticf
RICHARD M. M\U\
However, on August 8, the day Nixon unveiled
his income assistance plan, the relative worth of
the administration’s food proposal seemed to have
become a moot point, as White House spokesmen
flatly stated that with the advent of income assist
ance the food programs would be abandoned.
The National Council on Hunger and Malnutri
tion, in a sharp attack on this move, pointed out
that such action would lower the food purchasing
power of the hungry in 44 states. Senator Mc
Govern charged that elimination of food programs
could only be accomplished by adding six billion
dollars more to the income assistance plan. Other
wise, he said, the majority of the nation’s hungry
would be worse off than they are now, because a
family of four with no income would get 1,600
dollars a year under the income assistance plan,
while it needs 1,500 dollars a year just for food.
Gmbarrased by having his callous disregard for
the hungry again discussed in the press, President
Nixon relented on August 19, and assured news
men that the administration’s food proposal of
May was still a part of his overall welfare package.
However, by September 25, the day Senator Mc
Govern's bill was passed by the Senate, President
Nixon had still not presented specific legislation
for the implementation of his food proposal.
No matter which plan is finally enacted, it should
be obvious that the millions of people who suffer
from chronic and grinding hunger cannot count
themselves among the President’s “forgotten
Americans.” If the hungry are to escape the high
infant mortality rate, mental retardation, and
stunted growth that result from malnutrition, they
had best look somewhere other than the White
House for help.
Illllllllllllllll!lllllll
Jules Feiffer
omkm,tv u*e w
WUM&R OF y
WfflONf OOMPAW1/.
Pioee.
ii
mr
CITY
&
THAT,
ofmm.
i
IX \ Ji
m
MO
HfWI
mu?
wu
seen
MX,
m&
C-O-Mf'A'M'V
m
wMm.
/
one
womi
MOMENT
ft'
MAm
IMraeMAW
ivutew
mm of m
&ZZZZZZZ
£
Q
i
I