Opinion
The fact is, it is the young who have
in their own amateurish, even grotesque
way, gotten dissent off the adult drawing
board. They have torn it out of the books
and journals an older generation of radi
cals authored, and they have fashioned it
into a style of life. They have turned the
hypotheses of disgruntled elders into ex
periments, though often without the will
ingness to admit that one may have to
concede failure at the end of any true
experiment.
When all is said and done, however,
one cannot help being ambivalent toward
this compensatory dynantism of the young.
For it is, at last, symptomatic of a thor
oughly diseased state of affairs. It is not
ideal, it is probably not even good that
the young should bear so great a respon
sibility for inventing or initiating for their
society as a whole. It is too big a job for
them to do successfully. It is indeed tragic
that in a crisis that demands the tact
and wisdom of maturity, everything that
looks most hopeful in our culture should
be building from scratch—-as must be the
case when the builders are absolute be
ginners.
—Theodore Roszak. The Making of
a Counter Culture, Reflections on
the technocratic society and its
youthful opposition
m DEMAND!
*END ROl
\2-m ...
temmNfr
h-£SMUSH DM-\
1 cm center
14-fi/OMQRB
1 tfuffputau
Letters
Emphatic disassociation
The Arab Student Association
held an unscheduled meeting
Thursday, Jan. 13, in connection
with implicating its name in the
Emerald, on the previous day
with the proposed “People’s
Trial,” organized by the Jan. 14
Coalition. The organization adopt
ed a resolution to this effect:
The Arab Student Association
wishes to emphatically disassoci
ate itself from all activities or
ganized and conducted by the
Jan. 14 Coalition.
The Association calls upon the
Emerald to print a correction con
cerning linking the organization’s
name with the Jan. 14 Coalition in
Monday’s paper. We understand
and wish it known that the Em
erald’s reporting staff made a mis
take in including the association’s
name among the groups support
ing and organizing the Jan. 14
Coalition. The Arab Student As
sociation had no intention of
lending such support. Any parti
cipation by Arab Students in the
trial was on an individual basis
and should be so regarded.
Abdel Halim
President
ROTC confronted
The other day, out of mere
curiosity, 1 decided to attend an
ROTC class. I’d refuse to be a
part of any force like our Army
but I wanted to know what kind
of education these possible offi
cers receive.
I was politely received in
James McDanial's class on Jan.
15, though I was told that next
time I was to have permission
prior to attending the class.
The lecture of the day con -
cerned military courtesies such
as the use of sir in addressing a
senior officer, the use of the sa
lute and some supposedly logi
cal explanation for a junior offi
cer opening and closing doors for
his senior! The logic being that
the senior has more work to do,
so he must get to his job faster
through doors opened by his ju
nior.
I asked a few questions con
cerning the psychological conse
quences of siring and the salute
but McDanials seemed to deny
that there could be any detrimen
tal effects upon soldiers.
I could have argued every mil
itarily sided point McDanials
made, however, when the group
of anti ROTC people approached
the buildings, he dismissed the
class as he said he would, earlier.
The majority of those in the
class left, looking like fourth
graders, pleased to get out of
class due to a lire drill.
While the marchers shouted out
side locked classroom doors, 1
attempted to argue my anti - war
stance with those remaining, in
eluding McDanials. Although I
got the same old arguments and
falsehoods about the war in Viet
nam, a couple of boys I talked to
seemed concerned and somewhat
frightened that their justifications
for enrolling didn’t stand upon
sound foundations.
People, my point is that we
can confront these enrollees on a
one to one basis in class, raising
questions as to the validity and
morality of their acceptance of
indoctrination. If these boys are
confronted by a large group of
people in their small classrooms,
certainly they will get paranoid
and start to reason in military
lines. If we could turn on a few
at a time to the possible conse
quences of their future actions
perhaps they will not enroll in
ROTC, therefore ROTC will cease
to exist. I think it is worth a
try.
David Parker
Junior, Liberal Arts
Established channels
A group of students with no dis
cernable program of interest to
the bulk of the members of the
University community has just
forced the adjournment of the
monthly meeting of the general
faculty (Jan. 14).
I suppose they felt it worth
while to demonstrate that a small
group can disrupt the orderly pro
cedure of a large unarmed assem
bly. Was there any question in
their minds about that before?
The cost to the general Univer
sity community was delay in dis
cussing and possibly passing leg
islation to reduce the nine-hour
English Composition requirement
to six hours and possibly asking
the President to establish a com
mittee to review the contracts
under which ROTC courses are
presently taught here, among oth
er things.
None of the items on the agen
da for the general faculty meet
ing was particularly earth-shak
ing, but with regard to those two
at least I should have thought ra
tional students would have re
garded them as somewhat more
urgent than the fun and games
that took their place.
Does anybody seriously imagine
that in a ‘politicized” and "po
larized" atmosphere the left wing
and poor people will find their
lot improved? Why should ra
tional people prefer irresponsible
hysteria to mere smugness. See
ing in our University there are
channels for achieving changes in
course content, administrative
structure below the State Board
level and, 1 think (but would be
happy to know facts to the con
trary if 1 am uninformed) any
other aspects of the organization
and operation of the University,
it is difficult to understand why
any proposal that can stand pub
lie scrutiny is not presented
through established channels.
Is it thought that the Univer
sity community, the legislature of
Oregon or the public-at-large will
be more kindly disposed to de
mands presented to the accom
paniment of riot? Or that changes
can be wrought by riot that the
University community, the legis
lature of Oregon or the public
at-large do not want? Or is it pre
tended that merely shutting down
the orderly operation of the Uni
versity will somehow benefit some
body?
Suppose a real issue should
arise and a demonstration might
be felt to be helpful; would to
day’s activities increase its chan
ces of being noticed sympathetic
ally?
In short, I am not only confus
ed about the motives of today’s
demonstrators, but am also sus
picious that some may have lost
contact with reality.
Alfred Rubin
Associate Professor of
Law
Abdicating reason
I have noticed in the aftermath
of last Wednesday's kangaroo
court that no one has got the
essential point about that “trial”
or about the radicals’ “demands”
on this or any other occasion.
President Clark declined to
play along with the radicals, be
yond the point of pretending with
them that they actually had
something to say, on nothing but
the contention that the trial ver
dict was predetermined and
hence, “art" rather than dialog,
or whatever the jargon calls it
these days.
That he in particular failed to
make the one right reply to the
contemptible arrogance of these
hoodlums—namely, that the ad
ministrative policies and educa
tional program of the University
are not subject to their whims or
anybody else’s in the student
body—reflects on his value to the
people of Oregon as an administra
tor of their university.
The University is public prop
erty, which means that it is own
ed by and operated for the ben
efit of the people of Oregon —
who pay the bills. The Univer
sity's administration is employed
by the people of the state to en
sure efficient operation of the fa
cility, for the purposes intended
by the people of the state.
The faculty are employees of
the University and the students
are customers of the services pro
vided by the University.
There is nothing sacred or
mystical about either role: no spe
cial rights or privileges accrue to
students and faculty of a school
qua students and faculty.
In their respective roles as cus
tomers and employees, students
and faculty have no more right to
determine administrative policies
than post office patrons and pos
tal clerks have to determine the
price of postage stamps or the
subject matter of commemora
tive stamps.
The University is not a political
agent: it is an educational service
supported by taxpayers. The Uni
versity is not a social action cen
ter: there are large numbers of us
who do not care about the per
sonal problems of people we do
not know, and regard any de
mands to the controversy as un
warranted interference. That stu
dents and faculty should run the
University to suit their own pur
poses, which will change moment
to moment according to whether
left wing or right wing or mod
erate thugs seize control of the
machinery of command, is an ar
bitrary and contemptible abroga
tion of the property rights of the
people who own the University—
Oregon taxpayers.
For President Clark or any
body else to reject the demands of
the Jan. 14 Coalition or any other
pressure group of whatever po
litical stripe, on any grounds
whatever, except that it is none
of their damn business, is to abdi
cate reason and justice, not to
mention relevance. For an admin
istrator in President Clark’s po
sition it is worse—it is disloyalty
to his employers and ought to be
treated as such.
John Keim
Sophomore, Slav. Lang.
Intellectual suicide?
The SDS says “the University
is an integral part of the military
industrial - educational complex,"
noting that it benefits from fed
eral grants, maintains financial
relationships with huge corpora
tions, and has board members in
volved in big business.
Granted. Is the University there
by guilty of perpetuating the war
and our other assorted afflictions?
I find this hard to buy. Nor am
I clear about their remedies other
than blood and confusion.
Federal money supports facul
ty research, graduate training, and
the library. Should we decline
such support and commit intel
lectual suicide?
State Board members are in
volved in big business. So are
most successful Oregonians. Gov
ernors appoint such people to
state boards.
The University does deal with
big corporations. They sell us
things we need: cars, typewrit
ers. computers, paper towels. ...
It could liquidate its corporate in
vestments, but what would it
then invest in? Government
bonds? Mom-and-Pop grocery
stores? Why snub marketable as
sets that yield a favorable re
turn?
The Marxist tenets cf the SDS
are simply wrong. On bal
ance, “big business” and “high
finance” have lost, not gained,
from war. Nor are they propo
nents of racism, pollution, or
slums. Space forbids elaboration,
but on the war-profiteering charge
let me quote from a recent New
Republic (Dec. 20, p. 15):
“Although America’s munition
makers are thought to be reap
ing a financial bonanza from the
Vietnam war, the facts indicate
otherwise. In 1965 the top five
defense contractors were Gener
al Dynamics, Lockheed, General
Electric and United Aircraft. By
the beginning of 1969, one of the
big five, Douglas has been squeez
ed out of existence; a second one,
Lockheed, was in trouble. Of
the three remaining, two were
under severe financial pressure.
For many war contractors, Viet
nam has been a headache; for
others it has been disaster.”
Henry Goldstein
Assoc. Prof, of
Economics
Disheartening task
The University community
might like to share an example of
frustration and resultant humor
that occurred in my Anthropol
ogy 101 class on Thursday, Jan
uary 15, 1970. When I arrived
at 10:30, a student whose pic
ture appeared on the front page
of the Emerald, Friday, January
16 (bottom picture, fourth per
son from the left) asked to speak
for a few minutes. I complied.
After discussing the Moratori
um, the Vietnam War, and other
matters for three or four min
utes, he asked for questions. A
student asked him if he would
please leave since he was pay
ing money to attend scheduled
classes and hear scheduled lec
turers, not political lectures. If
he wanted to listen to a political
lecture he could go to one of
the rallies.
The lecturing student replied
(undoubtedly without thinking)
that that was the problem: when
they held rallies no one went
to them. At this point the stu
dents in the audience (perhaps
two-thirds to three-fourths of
normal attendance) began to
laugh and heckle the student so
that he was forced to leave the
hall.
I could not help but reflect on
the poor fellow’s plight: when
you cannot even succeed in radi
calizing the students, how can
you expect to succeed with the
general populace? It certainly is
a disheartening and frustrating
task being a student revolution
ary.
Philip Grant
Asst. Prof., Anthro.