-editorial
Executive cracks whip,
kicks sand at IFC
If, as we are continually being reminded.'the ASUO Executive wants to 'rise
up out of the sandbox",of student politics, then perhaps it could put an end to the
inter-office squabbles and one-upmanship that have permeated Suite Four all
summer.
Working relationships between the executive and the Incidental Fee Com
mittee (IFC) have deteriorated rapidly since June. At that time, the IFC was in the
process of submitting its budget recommendations to the executive for review.
By IFC Vice-Chairer Bill Dick’s admission, the committee was tardy in
preparing its recommendations. As a result, the executive was faced with an
approaching deadline for final budget submission to the University president and
a budget with an unacceptable number of errors and omissions. The executive
justifiably pointed out the errors, demanded corrections and asked for clarifica
tion from the ASUO constitution committee on budgeting procedure.
But relationships originally strained by the budgetary process have been
further aggravated by the executive. In its latest action, the executive announced
• that salaries for IFC members will be frozen for the alleged failure of the commit
tee to set and maintain office hours.
Such a move should have been taken only as a last resort against a
committee proven to be both uncooperative and negligent. And the unilateral
decision to make such a move is an ultimate action not to be played as a trump
card. As it is, the executive seems to be neglecting its other projects in favor of
unnecessary whip-cracking over IFC heads.
An executive committed to exploring the issues of collective bargaining, the
creation of an EMU tavern, an8 increased student input In teacher course
evaluations and in faculty tenure and promotion decisions is mis-directing its
energy by continued needling of the IFC. So long as the University community is
subjected to accounts of bickering among the branches of student government,
ASUO politicians will be unable to convince anyone that they have left the
sandbox behind.
Letters—
Dung beetle, not gadfly
Now that A. Palandri and C. Lau have
done such a fine job chastising Mr. Sylwes
ter for his crypto-racism, I would like to re
spond to two more of his distinguishing
characteristics: self-righteous egotism and
aggressive ignorance.
I had to endure Mr. Sylwester's letters for
the year I was in office. In that time I disco
vered he never had fewer than two factual
errors in his so-called exposes of the
ASUO. As far as I know he has never
once visited the ASUO Executive or the
programs which he criticized, to verify his
remarks. For me he is the epitome of the
irresponsible egotist who prefers broad
casting his uninformed opinions to conduct
ing substantive research and making con
structive criticism.
Mr. Sylwester considers himself the
ASUO's Socratic gadfly. In fact he is no
thing more than a dung beetle, rolling to
gether little pieces of literary shit for publi
cation in the Emerald.
Robert Liberty
1974-75 ASUO President
Equal time for Aquinas?
Today in colleges across the land the re
spective departments of philosophy neglect
a particular school of philosophy which is
called Thomism; Thomism being the
philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and the
'... something about "Associ wing with kncwn communists". .. ’7
official system of the Catholic Church.
Yet the postion of atheistic existentialism
of Sarte is not neglected.
What about equal time for Thomism?
Aquinas using reason proves the exis
tence of God and gives a rational terra firma
for Christianity. That should be interesting
to study.
This is my opinion. Further information
from me, or Catholic Truth Society in Port
land (see phone book.)
Douglas Keith
4297 Main St.
Perry, Ohio 44081
Flippancy and ignorance
Your editorial of July 22 represents a
strange mixture of flippancy and ignorance.
It reflects ignorance of the history of the
American labor movement, of the transfor
mation of the Soviet system and of interna
tional socialism, and a not too appealing
lightheartedness (lightheadedness?) with
respect to values and symbols cherished by
many.
Asking critical questions about the under
lying purpose and the workings af
U.S.-Soviet detente is not synonymous
with an anti-Socialist position. More
socialists, I assume ask such questions
than heads of multi-national corporations
who are profiting from East-West trade As
suming even that George Meany, and the
AFL-CIO which he heads, “is heir to the
radical socialism of the early labor move
ment'' (which Meany would deny as vehe
mently as bis predecessors to the presi
dency of the AFL, including founder.
Samuel Gompers), why are the established
leaders of the Soviet-type political systems
who sign “secret pacts” with the enemy or
indulge in Coca Cola performing less of an
“about face" than organized labor in the
US? Perhaps the about-face is less
Meany's (who was consistently anti
Socialist, radical or otherwise) than of those
to whom (according to your perception) he
is to owe some loyalty or allegiance? Well, I
guess that ignorance and flippancy go hand
in hand with lack of logic. But then how
much can one expect from editors who had
to wait for Joan Baez to learn about Joe Hill.
Joseph R. Fiszman
Political Science
r-\
Letters policy
The Emerald will accept and try to
print all letters containing fair com
ment on ideas and topics of concern
or interest to the University commun
ity. Because of space limitations, let
ters must be no more than 250
words-typed, triple-spaced, (fated
and signed with the person ’s major
or discipline. Longer letters will be
shortened at the editor's discretion
Longer opinion columns will be pub
lished whenever possible after being
submitted to the editorial page
editor The limit on opinion columns
is 1,200 words, using the same for
mat as letters.
s___^
-OpiIUOIl
Endurinq the belly politic’ a U.S. tradition
By NICHOLAS VON HOFFMAN
WASHINGTON(KFS)—“Under the present
conditions in Washington and conditions which have
existed ever since I came to Congress, it is almost
impossible to obtain effective legislation in the in
terest of the people,” said Sen. George Norris, the
heroic Nebraskan Progressive in 1923. “I have been
bucking this game for 20 years and there is no way of
beating it. I have done all I could. Now I am through
Sen. Norris changed his mind and stayed in
office long enough to tast new disappointments. The
same temptation to chuck it, however, still works on
some members of Congress. Not all of them are
polyphloisboian hypocrites who’d kill the family dog
and eat it for stew if that would return them to office.
The other day, William Hungate, the Democratic
Congressman from Missouri, called it a career. "I
have gradually become aware that piy enthusiasm
for public service has been waning under the weight
of my frustrated hopes, others’ unreasonable pres
sures, and the job’s persistent demands... Where
once criticism fell without impact, it now lands heav
ily. Where once exorbitant demands aroused little
feeling, they now provoke annoyance. I have found
that since I entered office the duties have increased
dramatically, exceeded only by public dissatisfaction
with the Congress,” he said in his formal statement.
Informally he remarked, “If I go on, My Goodness!
I’m going to wilt like an ice cream soda.’’
The melting of Congressional popsicles doesn’t
represent another one of those suddently discovered
trends we newsies (cq) get off on. "The extraordinary
high number of resignations from the early Congress
alone suggest the degree of the politicians' dissatis
faction with the public life in the capital,” writes
James Sterling Young ("The Washington Commun
ity: 1800-1828,' Harcour, Brace & World, 1966).
“From 1797 to 1829 more Senators resigned than
failed to be reelected... On the average 17.9 per cent
of the Senate resigned every two years, almost six
times the biennial turnover in the modem Senate due
to resignations. Among Representatives, an average
of 5.8 per cent resigned in each Congress, about
twice the percentage of resignations in the modern
House.”
The reasons for chucking it, bagging it and
otherwise cashing it in during the first of the Republic
were much the same as some given now. John
Quincy Adams called the capital a "sink of corrup
tion," a place of a "thousand corrupt cabals.” Young
quotes another politician of the period as saying, “I
look around—and exclaim where is there one man I
can trust! and I feel there is not one!” With less
passion, Mr. Hungate says, “Politics is a place where
there are many friendly people but few friends.”
The guinea hens of the media, lined up 11 in a
row, declare that people are quitting because the
general, Watergate-fostered, opinion of politicians is
so low. Piffle. The general opinion of politicians has
always been low.
The belief that politicians are parasites, cow
ards, sellouts and thieves is an American cultural
trait. We worship our Presidents, but only after we
have despised them in their prior role of office
seeker, itself a term of contempt in American English.
We re great patriots, yes we are, a vast host of
screaming red, white and blue eagles, but what
American doesn’t revile his government whenever
he gets a beer in his hand?
We re sentimental anarchists who venerate our
Revolution and hate the government which issued
from it. And we ll vote for any blowhard who con
vmces us he isn't a “professional politician.” We love
our mythical amateur political heroes so deeply a
crook can gull us into backing any new scheme for
public peculation simply by telling us it is “non
partisan” or “above politics.”
Once in a while a Congressman who wants to
stay and take this guff gets the boot from his col
leagues. The treatment is reserved for blacks, reds
and the absentrnindedly noble. Presently it seems to
happening to Rep. Michael Harrington (D., Mass.)
who made the mistake of blabbing about the CIA's
role in restoring Chile to the family of capitalist demo
cracies. Chit-chatting about what may have been the
world s worst kept secret is a technical violation of the
House s rules, so there is a move underway to expel
the garrulous Mr. Harrington.
The other night a group of Mr. Harrington's hap
less friends gathered to do him honor before his
enemies do him in. Ralph Nader spoke and re
marked that in this case, “Instead of the rule of law,
you have the law of rule...Those who censured
Michael Harrington in effect said thou shalt not report
a crime.’ But then Nader deviated from the tradition
of blaming politicians exclusively and talked about
the body politic which he described as having moved
from the delegation of its responsibilities to itself to
abdication of them to "the final stage of vegetation
which is a man watching Johnny Carson over the rim
of his belly."
Ralph Nader, who ought to be President of the
United States, may be able to climb to the top of the
rim of the belly. Lesser ones tire or get kicked out,
and should the latter happen to Mr. Harrington, it is
in keeping with our usages to say that Congress'
censure is easier to bear than its praise.
Copyright, 1975, The Washington Post-King Fea
tures Syndicate