Editorials
Important faculty issues
A late report and a crowded agenda have
forced the vote on ROTC to be put ahead to
the June faculty meeting. This is justifiable
as as much time as possible should be
scheduled for debate on this vitally im
portant issue. There is still other important
business at hand though.
A proposal has been made that the
faculty vote to call for the total withdrawal of
American troops from Southeast Asia by
Dec. 31, 1971. This is a resolution that will be
proposed again in Congress and, hopefully, at
many other forums across the nation.
It should be passed, for obvious reasons.
Another proposal is that the faculty vote
to support “peaceful expression of con
victions” regarding the war. This is a very
important issue.
Protest has escalated in recent years
from sit-ins at lunch counters during the civil
rights movement to massive marches as in
the Moratorium and finallv to the hideous
practice of bombings. The number of
marches has grown to what some critics
would call epidemic proportions.
All this has caused many people to
become angry just at the word “protest”.
They have forgotten that protest can be
peaceful and can involve more people than
just students and radicals. All too often these
people identify the word protest with violence
and riots.
This proposal would help the university
community lead the way in this area toward
greater participation by all citizens in the
performance of their right of non-violent
protest.
This proposal can take some of the onus
from the word protest. It will be a major step
in involving the entire community in
protesting this horrible war.
By passing the resolution the faculty
members can show their neighbors, people
just like them, that the community can be
involved in protest without being considered
“radical’.’
A good proposal, a sound proposal and an
important one.
Postscript
The faculty’s discussion of the right to
peacefully protest and of the immediate
withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Southeast
Asia will probably draw a large crowd of
interested spectators.
This is good. It shows an interest in the
University’s decision-making body as well as
an interest in the issues involved. It shows an
encouragement of further discussion of
national issues by the faculty.
However, the spectators who gather to
watch Wednesday’s faculty meeting must
bear in mind the fact that faculty members
have just as much right to hold a view on an
issue and to speak out accordingly as
someone holding an opposite viewpoint on
that issue.
Spectators should not heckle speakers or
interfere with the rights of a person to ex
press his or her opinion.
The faculty needs to take more stands on
issues of national importance. A demon
stration would not only interfere with the
member’s right to speak out on the issues—
whether pro or con—but it would also
discourage such discussions in the future.
Just as the faculty’s support of a person’s
right to “peaceful expression” would be a
step foreward for individual expression of
convictions, an act of disruption or in
terference would be a step backwards.
Letters
Hysterical
It is difficult to answer anyone as
confused as Walter J. Wentz, but his
column last Thursday was so hysterical
that I thought perhaps someone should try
to soothe him by pointing out that those
who disagree with him may not all be so
dangerously mad as he fears.
Evidently he is too busy exhorting the
rest of us to straighten up, open our eyes,
use our minds, etc., to notice the abundant
evidence that U S. motives for waging war
in Southeast Asia might be more complex
and less altruistic than he suspects. In
fact, anyone who begins with the premise
that we are really assisting Vietnam may
be beyond rational help, especially when
he goes on to assert that the war “will
probably not even slow down” when the
U S pulls out Really? Aren’t we spending
something like 70 million dollars a day
over there'' And if we stop spending it, stop
bombing, defoliating, shooting, the war
won't even slow down? After such an
astonishing display of illogic, it isn’t
surprising that he fails entirely to grasp
the peace advocates' view of people—of all
human beings - and that a good way to
help protect their rights is to stop killing
them Indeed, much as I would like to
reassure Walter, I fear that he is too far
out of touch with reality If only he’d stop
getting so upset when the rest of us don’t
share his delusions.
I’aulette Thompson
Graduate, School of Librarianship
Fund Cutback
In view of the anticipated cutback in
funds for higher education in Oregon, it is
strange and contradictory that the
University of Oregon should give priority
to recruiting high priced basketball
coaches and replacing high priced deans
and administrators when the real needs of
the University more classroom teachers,
more teaching assistants, more books in
the library, more work-study jobs, more
scholarship money for students, and basic
maintenance of classroom equipment and
buildings are being ignored.
To maintain the quality of education at
the University of Oregon, cutbacks—if
necessary should be restricted to those
services and positions not essential to the
process of teaching and learning. This
means a reduction in all non-teaching,
purely administrative positions before any
other cuts should be considered.
As is true of many departments in the
University, administrative duties can be
divided among the existing teaching staff,
by rotation, without creating a separate
administrative class.
If the Legislature and the University
are really concerned with graduate and
undergraduate education, they should
consider seriously this simple way of
reducing costs and, at the same time,
raising the quality of higher education in
Oregon. Albert Leong
Asst. Prof, of Slavic Languages
Understanding gap
I do not understand Walter J. Wentz’s
commentary, “Let’s Abandon South
Vietnam," in the April 29th issue of the
Emerald.
First, l do not understand why he does
not share the opinion of 73 per cent of
Americans who now feel that the U.S. must
stop killing the Indochinese in order to
save them. He says, “Let us start being
honest for once, about the war, and this
May Day business designed to “Stop the
War ” 1 can certainly agree about the need
to start being honest about the war. I
honestly believe that some of the people in
the U.S. do not care about some of the
people in Indochina to the extent that they
are willing to kill most of the Indochinese
and quite a few of the Americans to prove
this point. 1 certainly can agree with Mr.
Wentz on this point, and the facts—“to
shovel our way out from under ten year's
worth of rationalizations’’—make it
abundantly clear that our government,
considers the world divided into "people"
and "non-people." The facts also show who
falls into these human and non-human
categories; those with white skins are
people and those with non-white skins are
non people Some white people, notably
“hippie-types,” student radicals, poor
whites, welfare mothers, and other
special" groups don't care enough about
their white skins so they, unfortunately,
become non-people too.
Secondly. 1 do not understand why Mr.
Wentz is so upset about the People’s Peace
Treaty 1 have examined it. I examined it
at the Vancouver Women’s Conference,
and I examined it at a Student Union
meeting, and I examined it during six
showings of the movie, “Time is Running
Out .” And I am examining it again at this
moment. Mr Wentz, explain further, point
by point, what it is you object to. ...
D’Averil Ibbotson
4200 Bailey Hill Rd.
I.D. card again
The recent controversy and confusion
over the development of a new student
body card has me somewhat stymied, but I
would like to apologize to the student body
for the neglect of our ASUO office to
maintain solid student input throughout
the creation of the “new” photo ID card.
It is clear, I think that many students
have always resented the Universtity
keeping a photo of ea^h individual in its
files. The new card alters this previous
practice leaving no photograph in the file,
and a record of identification (the photo)
on the card.
The versatility of the card should
serve the individual student more ef
ficiently, as well as providing him more
safety in the event of his card being lost or
stolen. The use of the social security
number, which has been challenged by
many, is logical in the sense that this
particular number is now a requisite for
opening a bank savings account, getting a
loan, or to hold a job, which should leave
few students without their social security
number already on record. In terms of
“personalization” anything is probably an
improvement of the punched computer
card as the visible record of affiliation
with the University of Oregon.
It appears that the issues being
associated with the new card are con
trived, or at least a last second reaction to
a change that ought to stand on its own
merits, and not necessarily the policies of
Polaroid, etc. Mike Kment
ASUO Vice President
Not strong enough
I think Mr. More is quite correct in
analyzing the moneys given to athletics by
the ASUO. However, his argument is not
strong enough, not fundamental enough
He hints at it. but evidently he is not
willing to make the abstraction necessary
to see the fundamental issue.
The fundamental issue is this: Should
or should not a student be forced to support
any activity, organization or value which
is not of interest to him? I say no, he should
not have to support things which are not of
interest to him.
The alternative is for the governing
body to protect the rights, the in
dividuality, of the individuals governed—
to see to it that some individuals do not
gain at the expense of others. By doing
this, the burden is on the individuals and
groups to show other groups and in
dividuals why they are worthy of support.
The athletic programs would have to
demonstrate that they are good, rather
than just be. OSPIRG would have to give
evidence that its activities will be wor
thwhile. These organizations would need to
engage each of us as men who have the
capacity for choice, not bypass us by going
to a selected few. Steven C. Butterbaugh
Grad. Architecture
16th Century mentality
According to George Haggar
(Emerald. April 30), “America has a 16th
century mentality with 20th-century
technology.’’ Just what a 16th-century
mentality is, and why a 20th-century
mentality would necessarily be better, is
not quite as obvious as he seems to think.
Perhaps someone can tell us which cen
tury we are to blame for the mentality that
announces an “Anti-Imperialism Sym
posium" and presents instead a series of
speakers protesting American policies in
S.E. Asia and Palestine. Not that there is
any objection to such a series, but it should
be billed for what it is; no symposium on
imperialism that overlooks the largest
existing imperialist systems can be taken
seriously. According to last year’s census,
the Soviet Russian empire includes 113
million non-Russian colonial subjects in
the USSR alone, not including the
satellites. No one seems to know how many
non-Chinese are enjoying Chairman Mao’s
rule, but there are tens of millions of them.
If the sort of hypocritical selectivity that
pretends to oppose oppression and im
perialism and ignores the worst cases of it
typifies the 20th-century, a 16th-century
mentality might not be so bad after all.
Stephen C. Reynolds
Dept, of Religious Studies