r
Editorial
\
The drinking age should be 18
The House votes today on the age of
majority bill. The bill grants 18-year-olds
all legal adult rights — except the right to
drink. According to this bill the drinking
age in Oregon would be 19.
Yesterday the House rejected a
motion to substitute an 18-year-old
drinking age for 19.
The rejection is disappointing. The
Emerald strongly supports lowering the
age of majority — including the drinking
age — to 18. The Senate should recognize
the inconsistency of having two different
ages and amend the bill to grant 18-year
olds full adult rights.
Lowering the voting age to 18 was the
first step towards recognizing the role of
18-year-olds as citizens. Recent polls show
that most legislators and citizens
recognize the inconsistency of having one
age of voting and another for legal rights.
Arbitrarily singling out the drinking age
and making it 19 does not rectify this
situation.
Opponents of the 18-year-old drinking
age argue that traffic accidents will
substantially increase when 18-year-olds
can legally drink and that high school
students will more easily obtain alcohol.
What they are unwilling to admit is
that these students are already drinking.
Any high school student who wants to
drink will testify that he or she has no
problem getting booze right now. They are
simply encouraged to sneak around out
side of the law, and a pattern of disregard
for the law is fostered. The existence of a
drinking law which is difficult to enforce
and is blatantly disregarded undermines
respect for the entire justice system.
More than 20 states now have an 18
year-old drinking age. Studies of these
states show that 18-year-olds are often
more moderate drinkers than older per
sons.
Some opponents are reluctant to see
the Oregon drinking age lower than
Washington’s 19 because they fear hordes
of young people will cross the border,
drink and drive home. If this logic
prevailed the drinking age would still be 21
everywhere.
The age of majority bill recognizes 18
year-olds as legal adults. To deny them
one privilege of legal adulthood — drinking
— is arbitrarily discriminating. The
constitutionality of such a law is
questionable.
None of the arguments against
lowering the drinking age make valid
points against lowering the age of majority
to 18. None of them show 19 to be a better
age for drinking than 18. The Emerald
hopes that the weakness of these
arguments will be recognized by the
legislature. If a partial law is approved, 18
year-olds should legally challenge it.
Eighteen-year-olds must have full
adult rights — including the right to drink.
Letters
From Rep. Dellenbaeh
I have noted with a good deal of interest
the continuing dialogue in your newspaper
concerning the youth differential as it
applies to minimum wage legislation now
before Congress. It began with the well
written article by Valerie McIntyre.
The central issue in considering the
question of the youth differential is that
high school and college age people in our
nation face a persistent unemployment
problem. In 1971, for example, the
unemployment rate for 16 to l^year-old
youths who wanted jobs was four times
that for persons aged 25 and over. Studies
which indicate that youth unemployment
does rise with increases in the minimum
wage are, in my opinion, quite persuasive.
I feel we must consider, on the one hand,
the fairness of ensuring those youths who
work the same minimum wage paid to
adults doing similar work. On the other
hand is the potential of creating more jobs,
a good many of which I believe would not
exist if there were no youth differential.
Although there are, as Ms. McIntyre
points out. sound arguments against a
youth differential, I feel the pros outweigh
the cons. At this time I am leaning in favor
of supporting efforts to establish a youth
differential tied to increases in the
minimum wage.
I also want to emphasize one important
aspect of the youth differential as most
recently proposed that is often overlooked.
Although the youth differential would
allow employers to hire young people at
rates somewhat below the established
minimum wage, the employer would only
be able to maintain that rate for six
months. After that, full minimum wage
would have to be paid.
The House of Representatives is just
about ready to take up the minimum wage
bill on the Floor. On May 15, the bill (H.R.
7985) was ordered reported by the House
Education and Labor Committee, on which
I serve, and is currently s heduled to be
filed on Tuesday, May 29 is reported by
the Committee, the v uin differential is
not included in the Jill; however, I an
ticipate the issue will be raised during
Floor debate in the form of a proposed
amendment to add such a differential.
Since students clearly ha ve a large stake
in this legislation, I encourage those with
strong views about the issue to put their
thoughts in writing and send them directly
to me.
Sincerely,
Congressman John Dellenback
1214 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington, DC. 20515
Dirt-bike riders!
Friday’s Emerald featured an article
which made some inaccurate statements
about S.B. 100, the land-use planning bill.
Comments by two University motorbike
users were made to the effect that passage
of this bill would outlaw off-road motor
bike use in Oregon. To my knowledge, the
land-use planning bill contains no
reference to banning off-road vehicle use.
The bike riders may have been referring to
H.B. 2282, which does concern off-road
vehicle users. This bill would allow such
use only on areas specifically designated
by government agencies following public
hearings. As such, it would set up
reasonable restrictions similar to game
hunting areas or closed fishing waters.
The bill would not eliminate off-road use;
it would only make such use subject to
restrictions. This would be inimical only to
motorized recreationists who feel that the
public’s land is theirs to use as they
choose. The land belongs to no (Hie to
abuse, and no user group should be
granted unlimited access to the public’s
land.
Fred H. Swanson
Senior, psychology
Compared to what?
Letters to editors don’t come easy for
me; either the matter is not useful enough
to share concern about, or else it is so
useful that to show and-tell becomes a kind
of confession in the marketplace. But the
reporting of Professor Hyman’s approach
to Truth makes it seem so primitive and
naive that I can’t help stating my present
position on the matter.
He confuses two separate pairs of terms,
“knowledge” versus “faith,” on the one
hand, and on the other, “ ‘psychological’
truth” versus some other kind. Any term I
choose for that other kind begs many
questions, like: what kind isn’t
“psychological truth.” “Objective”
truth? Come on now — get off it.
“Measurable” or “quantifiable” or
“experimentally verifiable” or “public”
truth? Roberta Flack would say quietly,
“compared to What?” and would not stay
for an answer.
Faith is a body of belief, the relative
usefulness of which is verified by ex
ploring the consequences of holding it,
while building knowledge out of in
formation, wisdom out of knowledge, and
mutually confirming dialogue with other
beings out of wisdom. My position as to the
nature of knowledge is manifest in this
sequence.
The psychological truth of Tarot,
astrology, post-Freudian dream in
terpretation, graphology, spiritism, and
other rampant energies, is evident in their
striking influence on attitudes, as shown
by behaviors among those people who
listen carefully to what they say. My aim
here is not to evaluate the potential
usefulness of exchanges that go on be
tween those who counsel and those who are
counselled; it is merely to state publicly
that I believe Professor Hyman’s position,
as reported, builds on the heresy of
defining something by its potential abuse;
People WILL find faith, even when in
formation has become deified in schools;
people WILL find priests and mentors,
even when dialogue and community are
notably absent in schools, churches and
temples. The flaws in their findings can
only be learned experientially; it would
help to have professors rise above their
own fearful provincialism when they
preach about “academic objectivity” —
whatever the hell THAT is. May he be
protected from the numinous!
Robert M. Trotter, Ph.D.
Administrator, Wanderer, Musician
Edge junkie
Farcical masochism
In a recent letter to the Emerald, Jim
O’Rourke cited my previous letter and
lamented that “Sigma Nu fraternity is
being criticized for their efforts to raise
funds for BRING.” Aside from the faulty
grammar, this isn’t quite correct. I wasn’t
criticizing the fraternity’s attempt to raise
funds, I merely questioned the way they
went about it.
If, as O’Rourke claims, the funds were
donated by “those who, while sym
pathetic, were previously unaware of the
need,” how does sitting on a roof con
tribute to greater public awareness of the
need to recycle reuseable materials? As
for the function of “channeling funds”
contributed by those who were aware of
the need, but “did not know how they could
help,” couldn’t this have been done much
more simply and effectively by an ad
vertisement soliciting donations?
I suggest thut any funds raised by the
fraternity were not donated for any of
these reasons, but rather they were
donated by sympathetic people who were
concerned that all the colds acquired by
wet Sigma Nus would not have been
caught in vain.
Yet the fraternity’s intentions are
commendable (though their methods are
childish) and I can understand some of the
self-righteous indignation expressed by
O’Rourke, who ended his letter with the
query, “What are you doing to help?”
I’m forced to admit that I haven’t done
anything to help BRING. I am, however,
very much concerned with, and am trying
to gain support for, a cause that has until
recently been almost totally ignored by the
general public. We have been unaware for
far too long that there exist among us
various groups of people who seem to lack
the mental facilities required even for
their survival and well-being. I refer to
those who, for example, do not even know
enough to come in out of the rain.
Another symptom is the group’s
collective reversion back to childhood
fantasies, whieh, when taken to an ex
treme, can result in such peculiar
behavior as their playing on a teeter-totter
throughout the night. In this and other
letters I have tried to call attention to this
problem, and I now submit that the state
should provide psychiatric help for these
groups. ''
In relation to the Sigma Nus’ attempts to
help BRING, I find myself agreeing with
them. There is a problem. I simply feel
that farcical masochism is not the answer.
John Mighell
Political Science
Funds, not bias
As graduate students in history, we feel
that the Emerald’s recent interview with
mediaeval historian Barbara Westman
does not accurately describe the problems
faced by the historian, male or female,
currently seeking employment, or fairly
represent the history department’s
position.
Westman claims discrimination within
the profession in general and the depart
ment in particular. Yet her presence
directly reflects the department’s con
tinuing efforts to implement a program of
Affirmative Action. The contraction of
available funds, not bias, dictates West
man’s appointment for one year only. No
one would “dismiss’ mediaeval history,
but the realities of budgetary limitations
and student interest and enrollment force
the department to set priorities ac
cordingly.
Westman’s difficulties in finding a
permanent position are not unique. Jobs
for historians are currently so scarce that
entering graduate students in history will
be told not to expect employment once the
Ph D. is obtained. Likely Westman’s
specialty in mediaeval history and her
narrow field of geographic consideration
have limited her opportunities more than
sexual discrimination at a time when
Affirmative Action programs suggest the
reverse may be true.
Gayle Bandow
Timothy L. Wehrkamp
N.P. Sil
Gaylord B.L. Regan
Conrad L. Ober
Thomas M. Steele
Karen Gemant
Margot Beutler
Robert Wagers
Thomas McRoberts