Viewpoint
r
Leo recall is foolish and hysterical
By JOYCE BOLES
Patricia Schwindt claims that she
knows “first hand” about the Leo ad
ministration’s misuse of ASUO funds
because she watched “every
requisition of the ASUO go through the
comptroller’s office” when she worked
there as assistant comptroller.
Apparently she didn’t read those
requisitions very closely. Her com
mentary of Nov. 1, which generally
maligns the Leo administration and
then states “Leo and Barnett should be
recalled,” has at least one major error
in it.
Under a heading, “Other
questionable requisitions,” Schwindt
lists “over $70 for a weekend in Bend
for the Administrative Assistant and
his friends to attend the Demo-Forum
staying at the resort it was held in.”
V.
While the room rent did amount to $70
for two nights, the pertinent facts
missing from Schwindt’s allegation are
that there were six people the first
night, and eight the second night,
packed into that $35 per night suite. I
was there. The suite was available for
the use of any ASUO student who
wanted to use it, as 1 understood it.
The only fault I found with the
arrangement was the ad hoc way the
students attending were signed up for
the trip. Many who might have at
tended had no way of knowing about it.
But there was really no good way to get
the word out, because the whole thing
came up the week of Sept. 10 (Demo
Forum was Sept. 14-16). School was not
in session and the Emerald was not
publishing.
Further, the students present did not
buy the expensive meals provided by
the resort for the people at Demo
Forum. We went to Bend and bought
groceries and cooked them in the little
kitchenette.
As for Schwindt’s contention that the
ASUO group was “the Administrative
Assistant and his friends,” this is
wholly false. The Administrative
Assistant stayed in another room en
tirely, and the students packed into that
ASUO suite didn’t know each other at
all beforehand, for the most part. They
were all new to me.
I attended representing the Emerald.
Hopefully, the stories I wrote about
Demo-Forum for the Emerald did
something to enlighten somebody about
the working of the democratic process,
whatever that is, and if it can be un
derstood. I know I learned a lot from
the experience, and my only regret is
the $15 or so I spent out of my own
pocket. I couldn’t even get the Emerald
to pay for the film I used, although the
photo editor was happy to use one of the
pictures.
I cannot understand how Schwindt
could make a mistake like that after
claiming she’s in a position to know the
facts. Her mistake makes all the
allegations against the Leo ad
ministration by the Eugene Coalition
suspect, in my opinion.
To me, Schwindt’s making a hash out
of something she’s supposed to know
about smells of the ugliest kind of
smear tactics. In fact, I believe the
Eugene Coalition’s recall movement is
ill-conceived, foolish, hysterical, and
dishonest.
Although valid criticisms can be
leveled at the Leo administration, I
hope those people leveling them try, in
the future, to adhere to better stan
dards of truth.
Boles is an Emerald staff writer.
Letters
Cheerful yo-yo’s
After looking over Mark Tanchuck’s
letter advocating the abolishment of the
cheerleaders, I remembered something I
picked up at the Washington game: a list
of cheers. While I don’t necessarily ad
vocate their abolishment, 1 thought those
who don’t attend the games might be in
terested in the cheers with which the
current bunch of yo-yo’s expects us to
scream our guts out.
David Clark
Senior-Business
Note: Herewith one of the cheers:
KNOCK EMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMM DEAD.
Peggy and Robert
I didn’t at first feel it necessary to reply
to the several letters addressed to my
rebuttal of ‘I am Joe’s Penis” because I
thought that my letter stood well on its own
merits. Considering, however, the level of
awareness of most people with regard to
sexism and in view of the fact that my
existence has been questioned, I think that
a reply is in order First of all, let me make
it perfectly clear that I do exist, although it
is just as well that Robert (I am sure he
doesn’t mind me calling him Robert since
he has already taken the liberty of calling
me by my first name) couldn’t get in touch
with me because he really can’t teach me
much where the Women’s Movement is
concerned. Secondly, I don’t feel that I
over-generalized in stating that men
inevitably style themselves the aggressive
achievers and the final authorities on any
subject. Perhaps you don’t read much,
Robert, but if you look in any number of
books (fiction or non-fiction, con
temporary or classic) you will discover
that women are consistently characterized
as brainless and indecisive. And if you do
attend an occasional movie, you will see
the same sort of prejudice rampant on the
screen as is prevalent in our literature.
Now, concerning your placement of
priorities in the eradication of sexism in
this country, I believe that working
through the legislature and the courts is
effective and necessary. It is even more
important, however, for women to take the
initiative in alerting people to sexist at
titudes where they exist (no matter how
innocuous these attitudes may seem to the
oppressor). Unless we are all made aware
of the insidious oppression of women
through attitudes which stereotype and
demean them, working through the courts
will prove ultimately ineffectual.
The Women’s Movement can do very
nicely without your support, Robert
(we’ve already been patronized nearly to
death) and we still continue to complain
about sexism wherever it exists.
I am all for freedom of the press, but
sexism is no less offensive in print than
racism.
Peggy McCormick
Good point!
When I read Monday’s Emerald, I was
startled to find in an article on the Middle
East teach-in the following sentence: “The
only American troops that landed in the
Middle East in this century were to protect
Christian Moslems from Lebanese
Moslems.” Precisely what is a “Christian
Moslem?” Moslems and Christians are
terms used to describe members of two
completely different religions. It is
possible to speak of Christian Arabs, but to
talk of Christian Moslems is as ridiculous
as to talk of Catholic Mormons.
Mary A. Cor
Graduate Teaching Fellow
Department of Romance Languages
Laser-wit
Kudos to neophyte newsman Bruce
McDonald for the heaviest bit of satire
(Wed. 11-7, p.S) this side of the Offal Of
fice. His laser-wit pares so keenly that one
might initially miss the bloody sarcasm,
but he swiftly steers the reader into the
unmistakable style of National Lampoon
at its best. In fact, he baits the reader with
such masterful irony that one could truly
say, “here is a master baiter.”
It may be argued (by certain invidious
Grub Streets) that any writer could parody
a topic as puerile as cheerleading—but our
lad obviously isn’t any writer; his rare
talent lies elsewhere: in the stunning
ability to make an absolutely cretinous
subject appear superficially important
enough to warrant several inches of
editorial newsprint (with heads and
byline, yet).
McDonald m’boy, your chosen pre
profession was well-chosen. You’re ready
for the big-time. How about a piece on bed
time prayers in the dormitories?
Ron Dare
Teaching Fellow
A Tight Tull
In Greg B. Lee’s review of Robin
Trower’s album “Twice Removed From
Yesterday,” he states, “Tull reportedly
ended the tour earlier than expected due to
the fact that his band wasn’t tight enough
to follow Trower and company, and that
“Passion Play” was indeed a superflop.”
I respectfully ask Mr. Lee to get his shit
together. First of all Jethro Tull is not a
person as Mr. Lee seems to think. Jethro
Tull is the name of the band, which anyone
who claims to be a rock and roll critic
ought to know.
Secondly, I saw the Jethro Tull-Robin
Trower tour perform in Portland and I
think I can honestly say that Trower
couldn’t hold a candle to the Tull. I admit
that Trower is a good guitarist, if you like
imitations. I prefer the original myself
(Mr. Jimi Hendrix). The Tull performance
was one of the tightest I have ever seen.
Lastly, the Tull tour to the best of my
knowledge ended in Boston, where they
played for four hours with the audience
demanding more.
Donald Taylor
More sexist disgust!
I found your letter to the editor written
by Ms. McCormick disgustingly sexist and
appallingly inaccurate. I realize her letter
was meant to be serious, but I have had
about as much as I can take of men being
maligned, debased, and ignored all at the
same time. Regardless of the topic,
women think they are finer just because
they have a vagina—a subject I will be
willing to discuss with any woman who can
get a faster orgasm than I can.
Now, as should be clear, my argument is
not with the main point of her letter, which
is that a woman is only as big as her cunt
(rhymes with blunt). I know she is simply
upset just because men can leap over tall
buildings. Not only that, but thanks to this
typewriter I’ve written this letter without
the aid of a penis. It is enough to say that I
am greatly disappointed and disturbed by
her letter. In a free and open society like
ours such a letter should never have been
printed.
Edward F. Glennon
alias ‘joe’