Editorial
ASUO elections—two stand out in crowd
Twelve tickets have entered the race for the
offices of ASUO president and vice president.
This kind of situation makes the elections look
like a lottery, where any number can win. With
this possibility in mind, the Emerald editors in
terviewed candidates Sunday in the hope of nar
rowing the field to those we felt most qualified
Of the eight tickets we interviewed (the other
four did not show up), the teams of Ron Eachus
Mike Kment and Spence Alpert-Marlene Wylde
stand out above the rest. All four of these candi
dates have had extensive experience in student
government, and both tickets have formulated
platforms which offer concrete solutions to stu
dent needs.
We have some qualified reservations toward
the slates of Russ Husted-Moses Chao and Don
Chalmers-Rob Taylor, and do not feel they are
of the same caliber as the EachusKment, Alpert
Wylde tickets.
The tickets of Randy Farleigh-Tom Pene,
Gordon Rogers-Dennls Norman, John Thomas
Larry Tyson, and Charlie Varga-Rick Rittel lack
a comprehensive understanding of the issues or
operations of the University, and we cannot rec
ommend them.
best choice:
eachus or alpert
The platforms of Eachus-Kment and Alpert-Wylde
show some striking similarities, but with different empha
ses. Eachus-Kment say, as the basis of their campaign,
"We are running for office under the assumption that
students are the real foundation of the University. Ac
cepting this premise, students can no longer remain in a
subordinate position.”
Spence Alpert sees the role of student government
as an initiator of programs for the students, providing
goods and services through the resources already avail
able to the ASUO, such as cooperative housing and
stores, a loan program, etc.
The Alpert-Wylde ticket, however, also recognizes the
need for greater student participation in the processes of
the University, and would work for some kind of com
munity government.
Of all the candidates interviewed, only Eachus
Kment extensively mentioned in their campaign litera
ture anything about minority and disadvantaged stu
dents They support recruiting these students—bring
ing the percentage of disadvantaged students in the
University from the present three per cent up to ten
per cent. They also advocate expansion of tutorial serv
ices aimed at keeping them in.
When questioned about this area, Alpert and Wyldc
responded that although they support efforts to bring
disadvantaged students to the University, these stu
dents should be placed in compensatory programs to
bring them up to the level of the University standards,
so that after once being admitted, they won't be flunked
out.
Although almost every candidate paid lip service to
the idea of a joint student-faculty legislative body, Alpert
and Each us were the only ones to present plans for its
structure and implementation. Neither candidate has
been a stranger to the concept of community govern
ment Eachus' first editorial as Emerald editor two
years ago centered on this topic, and Alpert proposed
a detailed plan for an academic council last fall in a
joint meeting of the ASUO and faculty senates. Under
Alpert’s plan, a council of 30 faculty and 10 students
would replace the general faculty as the primary legis
lative body of the University.
He says, "The idea of equal representation has be
come more of a slogan than a recognition of political
realities. The record of other schools adopting similar
plans has shown that the number of students on the
council increases over time."
Eachus, on the other hand, urges a quicker adoption
of a joint student-faculty legislature on an equal ratio.
As an intermediate measure, he suggests a faculty-stu
dent senate which would replace the Faculty Senate,
but still be advisory to the general faculty.
Both tickets argue for greater voting student represen
tation on University committees, notably those dealing
with curriculum, promotion and tenure Both also advo
cate student control of student incidental fees. Alpert, in
addition, would provide for student referenda on major
changes in the incidental fee budgets
Eachus, in addition, wants to bring the faculty under
the conduct code, and gain student control over the
EMU
Both sets of candidates place considerable value on
student lobbying and extending relations between the
University and the community Alpert would set up an
extensive public relations program coordinated with
the University’s existing PR office, and establish “direct
communication ,on a daily basis, with members of the
administration and the state legislature.” Eachus outlines
four major areas of student lobbying: the State Board
of Higher Education, the state legislature, power blocs
in the business community, and the faculty. He also
recognizes the need to be on top of the action in
Washington, D.C.
The creation and funding of student cooperatives to
lower prices were endorsed by both Eachus and Al
pert.
Alpert-Wylde have included a plank on campus plan
ning, urging the removal of parking meters, curtail
ment of air pollution by the University’s physical plant,
and closing 13th street to traffic.
They don’t confront the plans to turn the remaining
green spaces on campus into cement quads and high
rise buildings, however.
Eachus-Kment presented specific proposals for educa
tional reform, which Alpert-Wylie did not. Among these
were expansion of the pass-no pass option, re-evalua
tion of group requirements, and the formation of a stu
dent-faculty task force to develop programs for educa
tional reform. They advocate, as well, the development
of a “Beachhead college” class approach, which would
allow students to gain University credit through working
in the outside community.
chalmers-taylor:
cliches and goodies
Of the other five tickets interviewed, Chalmers-Taylor
is the one we must deal with most extensively. They
seem to have put together a pretty good formula for
getting elected, but their campaign platform boils down
to a long list of cliches interspersed by promises of
goodies.
In their campaign brochure, they begin with the time
worn adage which students have been hearing since
junior high school: “Too long Student Government has
existed as an organization of students whose concern
for student welfare was occasionally superseded by a
concern for their own welfare. We believe firmly that
Student Government should serve the students, not Stu
dent Government.”
That should be implicit in any candidate’s platform,
and we doubt this statement radically separates Chal
mers and Taylor from the rest of the field.
Chalmers-Taylor pay lip service to the ideas of a
joint student-faculty legislature, greater student in
volvement on University committees, development of de
partmental unions, expanding the pass-no pass option,
and increasing the enrollment of disadvantaged students.
They do not, however, specifically develop these issues, or
explain how they will be implemented.
We feel their basic problem is that they lack a com
prehensive overview of the University situation which
they may gain with further experience (they are both
sophomores.) Nevertheless, Chalmers and Taylor have
come up with some good ideas: the establishment of a
Department of Ecology, lobbying with the state legisla
ture to make graduate assistantships as tax free income,
lobbying to change the Oregon Revised Statutes to en
able students to receive medical treatment and medical
aids, including birth control pills, without parental per
mission and state funding for the student health center
and the night-time personal crisis center.
We don’t believe, however, that either Chalmers or
Taylor are ready to handle the immense job of the
ASUO executive. We do hope they remain in the ASUO
Senate, and work for their goals through this body.
husted-chao:
unorganized
The Husted-Chao ticket is remarkable for its com
mand of the issues and total lack of organization. Russ
Husted is one of the most articulate candidates we inter
viewed. If he had gotten his thoughts and campaign to
gether a month ago instead of last week, we would
place him up with Alpert and Eachus as a serious can
didate for ASUO president.
What he did present in his interview resembles the
campaign platforms of Eachus and Alpert. And, in
deed, he sees many similarities between himself and
Eachus, except that he believes he’s more action-oriented.
Yet it was Eachus, not Husted. who developed those
platform issues in an li nage position paper.
Husted has proven himself to be action-oriented in the
past This fall he was campus coordinator of the Viet
nam Moratorium and his record for activism stretches
back to 1965, when he was involved in the Civil Rights
movement in the South.
Husted-Chao see three major problems facing the
University. The first is the "taxpayer revolt." or the
external pressures Dlaced on the University by the state
legislature, the press and the citizens of Oregon.
He would protect the image of the University
through the workings of a full time public relations
bureau and press secretarv, so that incidents such as
the fire in the PE building would not become exaggerated
in the media.
To further better relations between the University and
the outside community, he advocates programs that will
“bring down the fences between the two.” Among
these are classes, such as the “Can Man Survive?” class,
which allow non-student enrollment, and programs for
students going out into the community to learn.
Husted-Chao’s other two major concerns involve the
students at the University: the lack of feeling of com
munity in the University and the factions predominant
among students. Much of what they say about these prob
lems resembles Nixon’s “unity” theme in the 1968 pres
idential campaign.
Husted divides the unity issue three ways, unity among
students, unity between students and faculty and unity,
or a better working relationship, between students and
the administration.
Husted-Chao argue for reapportioning the ASUO
Senate to make the basis for representation on a depart
mental level. This would increase student involvement,
Husted says, by making the representative system more
relevant to each student. Moreover, students in each
department would have a greater chance knowing their
representative. But there are a lot of bugs in this sys
tem, too. For one thing, a large number of students
haven’t declared their majors, which would preclude
them from representation.
Chao does not seem to have much experience in stu
dent government. During the interview, he concen
trated on two issues. The first was campus unity.
As a member of a minority and a foreign student, he
feels he has a better perspective from which to relate
foreign students (numbering 1,000 on campus) to the
rest of the University. “I will not try to stress minority
rights,” he said, “but attempt to bridge the gap be
tween all students.”
Chao's other main interest is campus planning .An
urban planning major, he has an excellent grasp of the
planning situation at the University. We wonder, how
ever, where he has been when both ASUO and Uni
versity campus planning committees were being appoint
ed.
the others
lack perspective
The rest of the candidates we evaluated lack the neces
sary political stature and breadth of perspective for
ASUO president and vice-president.
There is one exception, Randy Farleigh, who is run
ning for ASUO president with Tom Pene as his vice
president. Farleigh has practically grown up with ASUO
politics; his older brother, Scott, was ASUO president
three years ago. He was in the ASUO Senate for two
years, and performed admirably there.
We thus expected more than his rambling monologue
on academic reform which made up most of his interview.
Farleigh defines academic reform as the greatest issue
are concerning students, but he hasn’t proposed any
thing new. He advocates unlimited pass-no pass, aboli
tion of the GPA for graduation requirements, an under
graduate advising system, students on University com
mittees, and the joint faculty-student Senate. He wasn’t
clear on how to bring these reforms about, however.
Farleigh also criticized student apathy, particularly
in the participation (or lack of) by students who are
already on University committees. But again, he offers
no solutions to the problem. And although we, too, feel
that educational reform should be a central issue for
students, he did not address himself to other important
areas, such as student control of incidental fees, expan
sion of student services, the relationship of the Univer
sity to the outside community and the State Board, and
disadvantaeed students.
John Thomas and Larry Tyson's major position is
that “Violence has no place in a university,” and would
crack down on campus demonstrators if they get out of
line again. Their only other big proposal was a reform of
the ASUO constitution which would reapportion the
ASUO Senate—back to a system very similar to what it
was like before the last reapportionment.
Asked about student control of incidental fees, they
said they had no statement. Asked about open admis
sions for disadvantaged and minority students, they re
plied that they were primarily concerned with the “aver
age student.”
Gordon Rogers and Dennis Norman decided to run last
Friday. They ran as a reaction to the violence and rhet
oric which precipitated from the ROTC controversy.
They base their campaign on their involvement in the
“student-faculty” coalition, which does not have a great
deal of potential for changing this institution.
Three other candidates, Eachus, Chalmers, and Hu
sted. are also involved in the coalition.
Neither Rogers or Norman have experience in student
government and both are generally ignorant of basic
student issues, such as the incidental fee fight, and the
organization of student government.
Charlie Varga and Rick Rittel are running an “un
campaign." Their platform simply states, "We're going
to win.”
During the interview. Charlie (they want to go by
first names) said. "We would like to see everyone en
dorsed by the Emerald, because everyone is concerned.
We'll refuse the endorsement if we get it.”
Sorry. Charlie We can dig you guys, but you don’t get it.