fCommentary
Carl Mills and John Stewart
Senate reapportionment: two replies
Carl Mills is vice-president of the
Graduate Student Council.
Re: John Koford’s letter on re
apportionment (Emerald, Oct. 20). Re
apportionment is much more than “an
issue used at campaign time to gain
support of new voters.” While Koford’s'
summaries of the three basic plans for re
apportionment are essentially correct, it is
a pity that while he was on the ASUO
governing committee he did not look more
closely at the actual functioning of our
present system. In nearly two years on the
Graduate Student Council, I have had a
considerable amount of contact with the
executive and legislative branches of the
ASUO. The present apportionment setup
sounds good in Koford’s letter ; in practice
it barely works at all, and it certainly
doesn’t work well
Under the present system all the
Senators from Off-campus represent all
students living off-campus, and the At
large Senators represent all the students
(all 15,000). Off-campus and At-large
Senators are responsible to everybody in
general and NOBODY in particular. And
this is the major flaw in our present
system. How can an Off-campus or
At-large Senator even begin to contact all
of her or his constituents? How can such a
Senator be sure that the opinions she or he
receives represent the views of all the
people? How, under our present system,
can such a Senator be responsible to
everybody (or anybody)? How many Off
campus residents know the names of all
their Senators (How many Off-campus and
At-large Senators know the names of all
their constituents?)? The present ap
portionment system creates a gap between
Senators and constituents. It’s not the
Senators’ faults, it is a flaw in the system—
let’s change it.
Limit voting power
Koford is right: under a departmental
apportionment plan it would “limit your
voting power down to a handful of
Senators.” But this would not be a bad
state of affairs. First, voters would have a
better chance to know the candidates they
were being asked to vote for. Candidates
from a single department would be the
people you know, people you take courses
with, people you see, people who share
your interests. Most important, this
“handful of Senators” would be YOUR
Senators. Clearer, more direct lines of
senatorial accountability could be
established. The present system tends to
breed the University’s equivalent of
Repocrats and Demopubs who, in trying to
please everyone, end up pleasing nobody.
Incidently, Mr. Koford neglected to
point out that last year the voters, under
our current “populist system,” voted to re
apportion the Senate on a school
department basis. Much more needs to be
done in order to create an effective ASUO,
but re-apportionment is probably the most
important single step we can take.
John Stewart
John Stewart is an ASUO senator
representing dorm position no. 2.
I wish to thank Mr. Koford for his
letter of the 21st in which he called at
tention to my Senate Bill which would
apportion the Senate by sex therefore
giving women representation on the ASUO
governing body which they have been
deprived of in the past.
Mr. Koford may feel action in the form
of legislation is unnecessary to insure
women of equitable representation in the
ASUO Senate. While legislation may not be
the most desirable form of action to
remedy the problem of a male-dominated
Senate it certainly should be considered as
an alternative.
It may be a puzzle to Mr. Koford, as to
why women have been excluded from the
Senate, but it is no puzzle to me. Women
are excluded from leadership roles
because of the long-standing tradition of
male-dominated leadership. This tradition
must be ended and if the only way to end
the tradition is through legislation I would
be in favor of considering such legislation.
Women must no longer be excluded from
leadership positions.
Mr. Koford erred in his statement that
three women are currently serving in the
Senate. Out of the 34 Senators currently
serving only one is a woman and ironically
she is the only Senator who cannot vote.
Less than three percent of the ASUO
Senators are women when the figure
should be at least 50 percent. This situation
should outrage any member of the ASUO
who believes in human equality.
I have currently withdrawn my bill to
apportion the Senate by sex pending the
release of a current study on govern
mental organization now being drawn up
by HEW. Despite the fact that other
members of the Governing committee
consider my attempts to gain represen
tation for women on the Senate “obviously
a joke” (as quoted in the Emerald) I
intend to pursue the matter after the
release of the HEW report.
Before any women, encouraged by Mr.
Koford’s letter, align themselves with
S.A.F.E. I would suggest they examine the
record of the organization and its mem
bers.
S.A.F.E. has no platform as such, only
generalized promises about a “re
organization of the senate through
qualified candidates to improve the senate
as an effective organization for student
response.’’ I would wager that what
S.A.F.E., considered by Senate members
to be the conservative faction within the
Senate, has in mind as far as student
response is not what the majority of
students would desire but only to further
the political ambitions of hungry S.A.F.E.
Senators.
Doesn’t it seem a bit ironic that Mr.
Koford urges “any interested women” to
run with the S.A.F.E. ticket yet he also
expresses the desire of S.A.F.E. to send
“qualified candidates” to the Senate! Does
Mr. Koford therefore mean S.A.F.E.
would sponsor any woman who would run
with them? This is clearly the implication
of his letter. In my mind this exploitation is
sexism at its worst.
Women interested in seeking Senate
seats should be careful of male politicians
who are interested only in further ex
ploiting their sex to insure their own
election to office on the assumption that
they support women’s rights.
The content of Mr. Koford’s letter
tends to lead me to believe that S.A.F.E. is
not actually interested in insuring
women’s rights but only interested in
further exploiting women to serve their
own selfish political goals.
S.A.F.E. isn’t.
Children's
television
Violence
is not
the key
to good
behavior
By Judith Martin
(C) 1971, The Washington Post
If you’re crusading for better
television for children, the first thing you
want to do is to get violence off the air
right?
No, not right says Norman S. Morris,
author of “Television’s Child” (Little,
Brown). While Morris complains most
about the “pathetic apathy” of parents
who ignore their children’s television
experience, he is also exasperated by the
efforts of “well-meaning citizens” who
count the number of TV killings and equate
them to adolescent violence.
“Television’s Child” explores the
effects of TV-watching on children and
recommends to parents a strong com
bination of home censorship and the
badgering of television executives for
better programming.
Morris maintains that:
—Children know that cartoon violence
and the cool, stylized actions of such
programs as “I Spy” and Mission. Im
possible” aren’t seriously meant.
—Studies which show that television
violence is carried over into children’s
play have never shown that it carries over
into real life.
—Disadvantaged children, among
whom the delinquency rate is higher than
among middle class television bugs, are
watching less television and participating
more in street culture than non-delinquent
children. , _ . ,
It’s not the fact of violence that does
damage but the way it is presented on
television, and the way children see their
parents reacting to it.
Treat programs thoroughly
Rather than eliminate from television
any show of violence—which is, after all,
an important characteristic of the society.
and is most shown in the newscasts—he
would have it treated more thoroughly for
the benefit of children. That is, the
programs which show violence would show
its tragic consequences; and parents
would use television as a starting point for
discussions on what its implications are.
He recommends the same course for
what he finds of materialism, con
descension and general fatuousness in
children’s television—explaining to the
child why the program is objectionable,
and then “just turning the set off.”
Pressuring networks and stations to
replace the junk with worthwhile shows is
an extremely effective procedure, says
Morris, who is a producer at CBS news.
Such groups as ACT (Action for Children’s
Television), which have lobbied with
television executives and with members of
Congress, with the support of the Federal
Communications Commission, are having
an effect, he thinks.
But he believes in what he considers a
more practical approach to the children
TV issue than ACT’s recommendation that
commercials be eliminated from
children’s programs.
“That’s not going to work if we
maintain the same system. What we have
to do is to look at the whole method of
financing children’s programs. The
commercials could be cut down, maybe
some of them put on the soap operas that
the mothers watch, and they could be
clustered at the beginnings and ends. We
need to remove children’s programming
from the whole rating structure. They’re
never going to draw the crowds, because
there are fewer kids.
Pool resources
“Networks could pool their resources,
as they do for Apollo shots. Instead of
competing, they could alternate who takes
what. Private foundations could be used to
support commercial programs as they do
public television.”
His suggestions for the improvement
of the shows include an extended use of
drama to show problems children ex
perience, such as those connected with
school and pets; quizzes “without the
greed motive,” and expanded simple news
shows.
“Everybody thinks everything is
expensive,” he said, “but it needn’t be.
They say they can’t find hosts for these
programs—but every community in this
country has its Pied Piper. You just have
to look, because they’re not necessarily in
show business.”
Morris, got into this speciality through
his children, rather than his job, which is
concerned with radio news.
His connection at CBS has led to
charges of industry bias, but he points to
his attacking of networks, including his
own, and says, “You know how big in
dustry is—big insanity. Every vice
president at CBS has read this book, but do
you think they’ve ever asked me to consult
about children’s programs?”
But, as a parent of three sons, he was
exposed to “Romper Room”—“My wife
and I were appalled by the materialism.
They keep talking about the Romper Room
toys they play with, which are all sold at
Woolworth’s. The teacher’s job is to teach
those dumbbells how to buy.
“We started talking about the impact
that must be happening inside the kids
from television that we didn't un
derstand.”
And now, after parental regulating,
discussions of why and some practice,
their 8-year-old son “goes through the New
York Times every Sunday, discusses the
programs that he thinks he wants to
watch, marks them, and then discusses
them afterwards. It's simple. Any kid can
be shown how to do it.”
L. A. Times-Washington Post News Service