Oregon daily emerald., February 21, 1972, Page 9, Image 8

Letters
Dear Mother...
ling to the Feb. 18th edition of the
Daily Emerald, you have
d of the University Housing
lent the priviledge of “buying
for my children that would leave
options.” One need not ask why
for this—it is obvious! You do not
jr (daughter) to live her own life
lould be able to at this point of her
she can not be trusted in a dorm
,th visitation allowed, then where
u failed? It is no doubt true that
ut any undesirable situation can
1 on this campus if a person looks
1 hard enough. The same situation
i nearly every community in the
would be very ashamed to admit
id not prepare my child to live in
vorld by the time (she) is 18 or 19
Id.
you admit that your (daughter) is
>ared to live in a situation where
nteraction between the sexes is
ed, you may wish to consider
a suitable apartment for your
jr and at the same time find a
ible baby-sitter to keep an eye on
ou realize that if no visitation is
in the dormitory, there are a great
>ther housing situations where she
;o and do whatever it is you are
ihe might do in her dormitory room.
ime baby-sitter is the only solution
■ dilemma.
have stated that “It is a breach of
te to entertain boyfriends in a
m.” Says Who? My dormitory
om" also serves as my study room,
room, and business office. I often
riends in to listen to music on my
system, which could not be trans
down four flights of stairs to the
every time I wanted to listen with
i. The "bed” in my room becomes a
during the day, and the entire room
ctually designed for a variety of
»es besides sleeping. There is no
why visitors should not be per
in dormitory rooms, unless (as in
ase) your child is not prepared to
home at all.
may also wish to consider the great
•r of students who are paying their
ray through school, and are com
r independent of their parents,
you impose restrictions on them,
though you as mothers have ab
ly no right whatsoever?
our governance committee
tentative has stated, you may have
peace of mind with conditions such as
these imposed on students, but what sort of
confidence does this give your child? I
would be very disturbed to think I was
placed in a housing situation “for children
who can’t be trusted” by my parents. In
my opinion ladies, the problem exists
within your own homes, and if I were you, I
would find a solution there.
Roger D. Swayie
Soph. Architecture and
Dormitory resident
Repugnant letter
As a fervant admirer of the 1984 Big
Brother system of government, I wish to
applaud the recent letters to the editor
seeking to pressure the Emerald to
discontinue its “repugnant, degrading”
sexist advertizing and its “disrespectful,
belittling” references to the fair sex as
“chicks.” Certainly they have called at
tention to the damage done by the
Emerald’s thoughtlessness; how lives
have been destroyed and degraded. Had I
known at the time that all this was an
issue, I would have written in to report on
how hundreds of women, no longer able to
face life after hearing that ultimate epithet
“chick,” had thrown themselves into the
Millrace. Certainly such use of the press is
illegitimate, and deserves an indictment
for second-degree thoughtcrime.
The women’s liberation movement is
generally a serious, carefully planned
program aimed against some serious and
clearly definable grievances; inequalities
in pay and promotion, restrictive abortion
laws, etc. It is only at its peril that it is
distracted from these substantial issues to
peripheral bullshit like semantics and
nude modeling. A Ms. can be
discriminated against as easily as a chick,
and to the best of my knowledge no latter
day Carrie Nations of women’s lib con
template busting up establishments like
Gentleman’s Retreat. If Mr. Lifsher’s
suggestions are followed, the only winners
would be the forces of repression, and the
losers would be not only those who believe
in freedom of the press, but the supporters
of women’s liberation as well.
Neil Albert
Senior, Phil. & Psych.
Careful with words
This letter is written is response to an
editorial appearing in the January 29
Register Guard, entitled “Signs of
Resistance to the OSPIRG Tax.”
If there is one thing that law students
learn early in law school, it is to be careful
with words. Obviously, some journalists
adhere to no such canon. In a telephone
conversation with Mr. Lloyd Paseman of
the Guard, I was asked to comment upon
the increase of students who legitimately
sought their money in the form of refunds
from OSPIRG. I told Mr. Paseman that I
attributed the refund to two elements: low
visibility and organized opposition.
By the first, I meant a deliberate policy
to take on projects which would affect the
state, but which, because of their nature,
did not necessarily make headlines, and
which would, and were expected, to hit us
at the refund period. This is particularly
true when students and perhaps
newspapers weigh one’s effectiveness in
terms of headlines rather than change.
By the second, I meant that conservative
student organizations like Young
Americans for Freedom (YAF) and
Students for an Informed Republic (SIR)
had placed ads in many student
newspapers stating in part “nearly 5,000
OSPIRG members last term obtained
their refunds.” The ads were, it appeared,
designed to remain ambiguous so that it
might appear to a student that 5,000
students on his campus obtained refunds—
which was simply not the case. The figure
reflected approximately 5,000 out of 41,600
who had been assessed that term. I told
Mr. Paseman that the 5,000 figure
reflected in the advertisement represented
less than 10 per cent of the total amount
received by OSPIRG last term, and that a
fair presentation of the story would have
revealed that 90 per cent of the students
assessed had not obtained a refund. I was
asked specifically whether that 90 per cent
reflected student support on the campuses,
and I replied, “No . . . that 90 per cent of
the students assessed had not obtained a
refund, and an advertisement that said
‘5,000 students had obtained a refund’
might lead students, falsely, to believe
that a larger number of students than 10
per cent on each campus had applied for
said refund.”
But my comment was not reported as
such. It appeared in print as though I had
said that OSPIRG had received 90 per cent
endorsement from students, a figure I
would never endorse since OSPIRG
received 26,000 plus signatures last year on
petitions, which approached 55 per cent of
the students enrolled. I have never at
tempted to inflate the percentage figures
of OSPIRG endorsements from students,
other than the majority support we
received from students last year.
After Mr. Paseman’s article in the
Register Guard, I had been quoted on
radio from Eugene to Portland as saying
that OSPIRG’s low-key visibility had
“back-fired." Again, a statement never
uttered.
Whatever happened to the quotes I did
state to Mr. Paseman over the telephone
surely were not reflected in the story that
went out over the news wires.
What was reported became the subject
of your editorial.
One means of taking to the public the
issues OSPIRG investigates has always
been the public media, yet when simple
facts, figures and statements are confused
and lost on pressroom floors, one begins to
question the accuracy, or indeed even the
courtesy, of answering questions asked by
the press. Whether or not the Register
Guard finds the time or space to print this,
I have forwarded a copy to Mr. Paseman
in the belief that his notes will reflect the
statement, and the context of the
statement I did make. If they do, then I
would hope that his concern and yours
would justify the clarification needed.
That freedom of the press must always
remain a continued guarantee, is
axiomatic. All the public interest can ask
in return is that the press report with
precision and accuracy that news it
receives, and that such a policy will justify
the high calling and continuing sacrifices
asked of the press and its reporters. If
accuracy fails, we will have abandoned
truth for half-truth, a circumstance I fear
we have already flirted with too closely.
I endorse your paper, if such are indeed
its goals, and I respect both its posture and
its position. I hope that it will do likewise
for OSPIRG. After all, the statement
appearing on its editorial page proudly
states: “The Register Guard’s policy is the
complete and impartial publication in its
news pages of all news and statements on
the news.”
Bernard N. Merrill
Chairman, OSPIRG
SOAOO^S
■
'INTO THE BUS, OFF THE BUS, INTO THE BUS, OFF THE BUS — MAN, WHAT AN EDUCATION!'