— Editorials -
New thaw in the 'anti-war'
When Richard Nixon ran for President
in 1968 he claimed to have a secret plan
for ending the war in Southeast Asia. In
reality he had no such plan.
But with the consummate skill of the
master politicians he managed to defuse
the domestic crisis, the “anti-war” in the
streets. Since the Cambodian invasion of
1970 the anti-war movement has
shriveled and died.
But if Nixon is to blame for putting the
movement on ice, he may also be to
blame for putting a torch to the freeze.
Given new life in recent weeks end-the
war activists must now decide on the
tactics of their crusade. Their choice will
have significant consequences.
Energy spent fighting the Asian war in
American streets is wasted energy. That
is the lesson of Cambodia.
Only in Congress is there hope—and
slim hope at that if track records mean
anything.
Nixon appears determined to force a
military end to the war. Henry Kissinger
is again in Paris asking the North Viet
namese to surrender and bring an
“honorable peace” to Southeast Asia. If
the current talks fail, and Kissinger has
expressed pessimism of late, Nixon in
tends to resume the terror bombing of
Hanoi and Haiphong.
Sunday, a CBS newsman reported
Pentagon officials have leaked to the
press details of a South Vietnamese in
vasion of North Vietnam backed by
American air power. Nixon, the com
mentator reported, is considering or
dering the invasion if talks collapse.
Given Nixon’s reluctance to end the
war fairly, it falls to Congress to legislate
an end to hostilities. There are end-the
war noises already in the new session of
Congress. But those noises have been
heard before. Significantly, however,
new faces have been added to the ranks of
Congressional doves. Included among
them is Oregon Senator Robert Pack
wood who announced last week his in
tention to vote for anti-war legislation.
(Conspicuously absent from the group
is Fourth District Congressman John
Dellenback. Hie Medford legislator has
condemned the bombing but steadfastly
refuses to commit himself to voting
against the war.)
Hie choice facing anti-war activists
should be fairly simple. If Congress is to
end the war in this session then
Congressional leaders must be made
aware of public sentiment.
Hi at sentiment is against the war,
more strongly than ever. Nixon and
Kissinger promised peace in October.
Hey have betrayed their promise to the
American people and to the world. Only
Congress can stop them now, and that
should be the focus of the anti-war
movement.
Good head
proves fatal
Going organic but just can’t stay away
from your favorite tavern? Hien you’d
better check into just what is going into
that golden brew you’re pouring down
your throat.
The Dec. 23 issue of Environmental
Action magazine points out that many
brands of beer use various chemicals to
make a better head, keep the beer clear
when cold or to kill organisms in the beer
giving it a longer life.
While most of the chemicals used are
harmless, controls are so loose that some
brewers in the Midwest and the East used
cobalt sulfate, an organic material found
in vitamin B-12, to beef up the head on
their beer. Unfortunately no (me bothered
to check to see what would happen if
cobalt and alcohol were mixed and 50
people died from the results of this
carelessness.
Truth in packaging might be the an
swer. Another might be to just ask your
favorite bartender what is really coming
out of the tap.
University athletics need definition
A December column by Eugene
Register-Guard Sports Editor Blaine
Newnham raises some pertinent
questions about the place of athletics at
the University.
The column, entitled “Almighty
Dollar,” discusses money and recruiting
and how it applies to football and other
sports at the University.
It seems football coach Dick Enright
feels he needs more money to operate his
program, especially where it applies to
recruiting.
In 1971 the football team grossed
$700,000. But it didn’t spend all this
money on football. To quote Enright:
“Right now we’re paying for all the
other programs. Basketball is the only
one that comes close to paying its own
way. Track, for example, is a big loser,
here as well as everywhere.”
However if football isn’t going to share
the wealth just how are these other
programs going to survive? When
Enright was speaking of track as a loser,
he was speaking in terms of money. But
considering the national reputation the
University derives from its track
program, the popularity of the sport in
Eugene and the state, and the excitement
it generates, track is a bigger winner
than football, even if the team did beat
Oregon State. It doesn’t follow that all
other athletic programs should be hurt
just to build a single sport.
Are athletics going to be considered as
a whole or are they going to be broken up
into separate corporate entities forced to
pay their own way or suffer the con
sequences? Enright is football coach and
therefore must be the chief advocate for
his sport, but to emphasize football, at the
expense of other sports, is unfair.
Enright is also upset because
recruiting will be tougher this year. It
seems the NCAA is tightening up the
academic requirements for athletes
entering the University. Newnham
quotes Enright as saying:
“Do you realize that 16 of the 22 star
ters we used against Oregon State were
not eligible for admission to schools in the
Pac-8 other than Oregon and Oregon
State?”
Now it seems that the University won’t
have that advantage any more. The
NCAA has indicated it won’t approve
tables used at the University to deter
mine whether athletes will be able to
maintain a 1.6 grade point average. While
this may cause Enright problems in his
recruiting efforts, it won’t bother other
students with scholarships who have to
maintain a GPA a little better than 1.6 to
stay in school.
It doesn’t seem too much to ask that
athlete-students at the University face
some sort of reasonable academic
scrutiny. Admission standards at other
Pac-8 schools can’t be that tough if they
have produced the fine teams that they
have in the past. There is no reason that
the University should have standards any
different than any other school in the
conference.
The question of where athletics, or
more specifically intercollegiate
athletics, fits into a University has been
with us for years. Enright’s comments,
as found in Newnham’s column, show
that the thinking of the coaches hasn’t
changed much over the years.
But how do others think?
A sent in y of the athletic department’s
budget, a study made by the In
tercollegiate Athletics Committee and a
clear concise statement from the ad
ministration on this question are in order.
Input from the general student body is
also needed. Students spend more than
$150,000 a year on the AD from student
incidental fees. They must have their
say.
The need for a statement on the pur
pose of athletics at the University is
made clear considering the final quote
from Enright in Newnham’s column
concerning the fiture of football at the
University:
You tell me,” he said, “I think it’s
playing the Michigans and Oklahomas.
But it takes resources.”