Editorial
Trial result no cause for celebration
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pur
suit of Happiness—That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, drawing
their just powers from the consent of the govern
ed—That whenever any form of government be
comes destructive of these ends, it is the right
of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to in
stitute new government . . .
. . . when a long train of abuses and usurpa
tions, pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such government, and to provide new
guards for their future security.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen
United States of America—July 4, 1776
The five month long conspiracy trial in Chicago
is ended, five men have been convicted of cross
ing state lines to promote rioting.
That all seven defendants have been acquitted
of conspiracy, and the two charged with teaching
the use of incendiary devices have also been ac
quitted is no cause for celebration. David Del
linger, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hay
den, and Rennie Davis face a maximum sentence
of five years in jail and $10,000 fines, and all
the defendants are in jail on contempt sentences
ranging from two and a half months to two and
a half years.
What effect the convictions and contempt sen
tences will have on every citizen in this nation
must now be given the greatest consideration,
and each of us must examine his political beliefs
and ideals to see how extensive the damage is.
Beyond that, the convictions, and the fact that
the trial actually took place, calls for a larger,
more personal response than public witness; al
though non-violent demonstrations are certainly
in order.
They call for a review of what has transpired
in Chicago in relation to our Constitution, and
what manner of responsibility has been placed
on the shoulders of each individual as a result.
For an ugly and terrifying stain has been put
on the Constitution by the convictions and con
tempt sentences, and it will not be removed by
reversing the convictions or the setting aside of
the contempt sentences.
The stain will not be removed even if the
President and his Attorney General never again
seek indictments for violations of the law the
seven were tried under. Nor will it be removed
in the event that law is repealed by the Congress
or struck down by the Supreme Court. Although
these actions would go part of the way towards
avoiding future wrongs, they are not sufficient.
The stain can only be erased by an alarmed
and vigilant people, fully conscious of their duty
to never let it happen again, to never again allow
such wholesale dereliction of duty and disregard
for the Constitution on the part of their elected
and appointed servants.
For it is the duty of the people, the ultimate
repository of power in a democracy, to resist the
Congress should it try to pass another law so
inimical to the right of association and speech.
It is the duty of the people to resist should a
president and his attorney general flagrantly dis
regard their sworn oaths to uphold and defend
the Constitution by seeking indictments under
so dangerous a law.
It is the people’s duty to resist a judge and
prosecutor should they perpetrate such a travesty
of justice by conducting a trial like the one just
concluded in Chicago.
And if in the future the people fail in the
resistance to such clear abuses of delegated pow
er; if in the future the people fail in the resist
ance to such usurpations of authority, than it is
their duty to throw off such government, and pro
vide “new guards” for their security.
Letters
Appealing idea
It is an appealing idea that
Prof. Sheppard sells regarding
preschool education.
It is also somewhat fashionable
to portray educators and their
efforts as less than speedy. As a
member of the “establishment”
I’d like to comment.
Historically, psychologists have
had a lot of fun with educators
ranging from psychologizing
their curricula to condemning
their efforts.
This has been almost as much
fun as their main game — ver
bal hippity-hop.
Miss Routson seems to have
been able to combine both themes
in her report of the never never
land of Educational Environ -
ments.
Before rushing to sign a con
tract for your progeny with E.E.,
it might be fair to ask what does
it mean to “actively combine ad
vanced cognitive behaviors, soph
isticated artistic and creative be
haviors, well-developed percep
tual-motor behaviors, and mature
social behaviors in the child;
while maintaining a balance be
tween the spontaneity and initia
tive which characterize the grow
ing organism and formalized
structured behavior necessary for
meeting society’s demands?”
Or, please explain “by the time
they’re eight, the children will
have acquired all the basic edu
cational skills.”
This happy promise appears so
readily attainable that it really
should be shared with educators.
Of course educators are so non
creative it may not be possible.
Henry Disney
Assoc. Professor,
Educational Psychology
Defends Clark
Recent editorials and letters
to the editor published in your
columns contain serious distor
tion of University President
Clark's statement to the faculty
of Wednesday, Feb. 4, in which
he explained the principles gov
erning handling of the “Weyer
haeuser disruption" and the steps
that would be taken. It seems to
me that careful attention to the
text of the president’s statement,
published in the Emerald on
Feb. 6, would have made much
of this critical reaction unneces
sary.
First, the president made it
clear that his stand on the Wey
erhaeuser occurrence was based
on exactly the same principles
used on earlier occasions to de
fend the appearance of contro
versial speakers on campus, to
protect the press freedom of the
Emerald and other campus pub
lications, and to protect freedom
of dissent by student groups.
“Basic to the character of the
University is its open campus
tradition," the president said, “set
forth in a classic statement on
the right of inquiry, free dis
course, and respect for privacy.
“These traditions . . . are too
well established and widely un
derstood to warrant further elu
cidation at this time.”
The president may have spoken
too confidently. It is open to
question if the tradition of the
University as an open forum is
“widely understood” in certain
sectors of the campus. Never
theless, the same principles un
derlie the president’s Feb. 4
statement as having guided pres
idents and the faculty for many
years in protecting the open
character of this University, usu
ally against attacks from off -
camDus.
I cannot therefore interpret his
statement as a “get tough pol
icy,” a “hard line stand,” or an
unusual exercise of “power,” as
we have read in the press. The
policy is what it always has been.
A related issue has become
muddled and confused through
implications, in editorials and let
ters, that the president would in
stitute special disciplinary pro
cedures if he were not satisfied
with the severity of the sentences
imposed on the defendants.
Again, reference to the presi
dent’s written text is needed. “I
am told by many in the Uni
versity community that the Stu
dent Conduct Code is ineffective
and cannot deal with the prob
lem ... I want to give them pro
cedures every chance to prove
themselves . . . (but) we can
not . . . allow this incident to go
unnoticed if, indeed the student
courts or the Conduct Committee
fail to function, or if the code
does not cover the disruptive in
cidents or if persons involved
are not subject to the code.”
Every reference to the code
was in terms of its applicability,
coverage, and procedural ability
to cope with the problems, not in
terms of the nature of penalties
that might be imposed.
I am not asking to "trust Bob
Clark.” All I suggest is that you
read what the man said.
Editorial attacks on the pres
ident stretch back almost to the
date he arrived on campus. That
campaign has marred an other
wise pretty good year of news
reporting, columns and photog
raphy. There are no winners in
this kind of “cold war.” We all
lose.
J. N. Tattersall
Prof, of Economics
* * *
Performer insulted
I have always been impress
ed and pleased with the caliber
of entertainment we have had
at the University in the past few
years.
It is too bad that the school and
the students have to pay a large
sum of money to see a great ar
tist come here and compete with
the various failings of our sound
system in McArthur Court.
This is an open invitation to
anyone who can answer me why
we cannot have a sound system
that will enable the great enter
tainment that we get to perform
to the best of their ability.
As I understand it, Blood,
Sweat and Tears will be here
spring term; I would hate to see
them insulated as was John May
all.
Rob Lowe
Junior
Political Science
* * *
Childish letter
Mr. Goldstein’s (Prof of Eco
nomics) “reply” to the Jan. 14
Coalition was so childish, selfish
and myopic that I really could
not resist responding. Rather
than engage in an academic de
bate (which his column could
hardly initiate anyway), I will
reply in kind with the following
items.
First: ri. unions, scabs and
Goldstein’s laissez-faire philo
sophy. I suggest we remove his
own tenure and the protection
of the AAUP and allow him to
compete for his job every year,
or month. In view of the onset
ting "recession” I suspect that
desperate "scab” economists will
substantially underbid him, soon
ridding us of his philosophy and
saving the taxpayers many thou
sands of dollars and give some
poor unemployed Ph D a job (for
about $3,000/yr), thus alleviating
a bit of the real hard-core pov
erty.
Second: I would not advocate
abolishing the use and manufac
ture of toilet paper. I would ad
vocate diverting the profits de
rived from its sale into cleaning
up some of the crap in the air
resulting from its manufacture.
Weyerhaeuser boasts a 75 per
cent increase in profits for ’69,
now how about a 75 per cent re
duction in pollution for ’70?
Third: Let’s follow his laissez
faire policy overseas. Let the peo
ple (not governments, which are
known corrupt and under the
sway of our State Dept, and
Military and Economic missions)
renegotiate the terms of our “in
vestments.” With no more ma
rines, coup d’etats, etc., the terms
would certainly change, and liv
ing conditions for 95 per cent
of the people could not get any
worse.
Fourth: Mr. Goldstein’s sugges
tion that all the peoples outside
God’s own White America would
be but cavemen were it not for
our corporate benificense, smacks
strongly of a brand of racism
rather unpopular in the Third
World today, and I would highly
recommend that he does not
travel abroad for some time to
come.
They may act like savages, be
ing unaware of his Ph.D and what
it confers.
Russell Husted
Grad., Anthro.
All letters to the editor must be type
written and triple spaced. Letters must
not exceed 300 words and must be
signed in ink, giving the class and
major of the writer. Those dealing with
one subject and pertaining to the Uni
versity or Eugene community will be
given preference. The Emerald re
serves the right to edit letters for style,
grammar, punctuation and potentially
libelous content. Letters not meeting
these criteria and those which are
mimeographed or otherwise obvious
duplicates will be returned.
Credibility gap;
where it begins
From the Oregon Journal, Tuesday, Feb. 17,
under the banner headline, “Students Hamper
Firemen: U of O Fire Destroys ROTC Office,
Records.”
. . . “It took nearly three hours to control the
blaze because students climbed on firefighting
equipment and clogged the area in an effort to
hamper the firemen. Police finally cleared the
area.”
From the Chicago Daily News, Tuesday, Feb. 17,
under the headline “Students help ROTC blaze.”
“EUGENE, Ore.—A fire in the physical educa
tion building at the University of Oregon Monday
night destroyed the ROTC offices and other facili
ties, including irreplacable records.
It took nearly three hours to control the blaze
because students climbed on firefiighting equip
ment and clogged the area to hamper the firemen.
Police finally cleared the area.
Battalion Fire Chief David Boggs said he did
not know how the fire started but the possibility
of arson would be investigated.”
“When a false report is made in this climate of
fear and apprehension of students, it spreads. You
can never catch up with it.”
—Robert Clark Feb. 18