--editorial
Save the whales - later
There’s a wave of enthusiasm washing over Eugene;
people are excited about saving the world’s whales. It’s a
cause no one can oppose, a controversy with only one
side.
And it’s a painless cause to support, which explains
much of its unanimous popularity. No one has to give up
their whale skin shoes to save the whales. Local media
don’t have to worry about cancelled advertising contracts.
Nobody knows anyone employed in the whaling industry.
Sign a petition, donate a dollar, and that’s it: no more
environmental obligations.
This kind of facile environmentalism would be fine if
there was any assurance it would accomplish something.
But the governments of the whaling nations, the Soviet
Union and Japan, are not going to respond to public opin
ion in Lane County. Neither will the U.S. Department of
Commerce. The most effective course of action lies at the
state level — Oregon has extensive trade relations with
Japan — but this tactic has been largely ignored by the
anti-whaling movement.
In fact, it may be that the anti-whaling movement’s
net contribution to environmentalism will in the end be
negative. While save the whale rallies raise thousands of
dollars in Eugene, 10 per cent of Oregon’s plant species
are endangered. While hundreds organize to protest the
policies of foreign nations that permit whaling, govern
ment agencies right here in Eugene are permitting old
growth timber — the habitat of the northern spotted owl
and other species — to vanish from Oregon’s public
lands. The anti-whaling movement may be distracting
people’s attention from equally pressing environmental
issues closer to home, issues over which people may
have some control.
Saving the Alvord Chubb is admittedly not as exciting
or dramatic as saving the whale. But it is important
nonetheless, and our committment to the whale will not
appear genuine if we allow species like the Alvord Chubb
to vanish without a fight.
Life on this planet is poorer each time a species is
forced into extinction by our clumsiness or greed. We
should not spend our time organizing boycotts of the pro
ducts of foreign countries until our own manner of man
ufacturing goods is ecologically sound. For people in
Eugene to concentrate their attention on the plight of the
whale when our own country, our own state and our own
lifestyles are the world’s greatest contributors to
ecological catastrophe is hypocrisy.
Letters
Not representative
Jerry Martens should think
twice!
The Interfraternity council’s
endorsement of Dave Tyler, and
its justifications for his election as
ASUO president, was made with
litlle or no input from the Greek
Community at large. Tyler’s opin
ions and the position taken by the
Interfraternity Council are not
necessarily held by the majority
of Greeks.
On the contrary, many Greeks
support these programs and do
not agree with Tyler’s recom
mendations to the Incidental Fee
Committee. Martens has badly
damaged the reputation of the
Greeks.
We refuse to condone or take
responsibility for the acts of our
supposed representative, and as
for Mr. Tyler’s IFC recommenda
tions, they are that of one person,
in a group of many concerned
Greeks.
Terry Joe Johnson
Junior—
Advertising Administration
Robert Nash
Sophomore—
Political Science
and 5 co-signers
Attend meeting
This letter is to the University
voting faculty. I urge all of you to
attend the June faculty meeting to
vote on the motion to reconsider
the action taken on the ROTC
issue at the May meeting.
I believe that passing the mo
tion to reconsider with less votes
than passed the ROTC motion
will be detrimental to the validity
of decisions made by the faculty.
The reliability of two faculty gov
ernance procedures is in ques
tion — the month prior notice of
motion and the lack of a quorum
requirement.
The month notice was given
that the ROTC issue would be
discussed. Any evidence should
have been gathered during that
period and presented at the May
meeting. The philosophy behind
having no quorum requirement is
that those who are concerned
with an issue will attend, partici
pate in the discussion, and vote.
Isn’t a month’s notice enough
to ensure that all relevant infor
mation and sides of an issue will
be presented at a faculty meet
ing? What is this new evidence
which will sway the faculty vote?
Why wasn’t it brought out during
the May discussion? Who is
going to present this evidence?
Wouldn’t it seem likely that the
ROTC people at the May meeting
would have spoken up or had
someone speak for them if some
vital information was being over
looked?
If the vote on the ROTC motion
is easily reversed, how can one
retain faith in the faculty gover
nance system? Can the decisions
of the faculty be so dependent on
who happens to show up in 150
Science? You have the right to
make the decisions and the re
sponsibility to exercise that right.
Attend the June meeting and as
sure the right decision is made.
- Andrea Gellatly
Retiring SUAB Chairer
Slanted coverage
Dear Editor,
I feel Gary Feldman was the
best of the final three candidates
for ASUO President, and I voted
for him in the Runoff Election. But
I find it unfortunate that his elec
tion was marred by the dirty tac
tics of the Emerald and those who
apparently saw Dave Tyler as the
Campus Evil.
I was present for most of the
first presidential debate, and
when I read the story on it in
Tuesday’s Emerald, I discovered
that the Emerald had chosen
those comments by Craig Geary
which made him appear most
simple-minded and ridiculous. I
would like to be able to rely on the
Emerald’s impartiality instead of
having it force a judgment down
my throat, in the guise of objec
tive reporting.
Even worse was the story that
appeared in Thursday morning’s
Emerald. One would expect a
newspaper to approach with cau
tion a story of such controversy,
particularly on the last day of vot
ing, knowing that the candidate
involved — Dave Tyler — would
have no chance at effective rebut
tal until it was too late. Not the
Emerald. The top half of the front
page was filled with attacks on
Tyler as a racist.
What makes Feldman’s opin
ion on spending for campus prog
rams the “right” one? It is a dis
gusting and dangerous state of
affairs if advocating anything less
for the Black Student Union and
the Gay People’s Alliance makes
one a “racist bastard.” Perhaps I
shouldn't expect class from the
individuals who made these re
marks. But it should be expected
of the Emerald.
How inspiring that a newspaper
which stands up for oppressed
people in every corner of the
world does not hesitate to screw
University students.
Mike Pierson
Junior — History
Freedom of choice
As an Air Force ROTC cadet I
have been closely following the
controversy that has been
created on this campus by the
question as to whether ROTC
should be allowed to remain at
the University. After last
Wednesday’s decision by the
General Faculty and the subse
quent reactions, I feel that I have
been quiet long enough and I am
now compelled to speak out.
Supposedly the United States,
and by implication the University,
follow democratic principles
under which it is possible for
someone to choose, without re
strictions, their career field. Ask
anyone on the street and they will
emphatically state that this is
true. So why am I and 102 other
ROTC cadets (both Air Force and
Army) in danger of being denied
this basic right? Should it not also
be possible, then, to eliminate the
Biology or Music departments, for
example, if a few people got to
gether and decided that these
particular areas offended them,
and so they should be removed
from this campus? I can well im
agine the angry reactions that
would spring from such a deci
sion with cries of infringed rights,
etc.!
We also run into the argument
that the ROTC program creates
nothing more than blood-thirsty,
man-killing machines who are in
capable of doing any thinking on
their own. It is further implied that
the only way in which we can set
tle arguments is with force (ODE
cartoon, May 5) since we know of
no other way, not knowing how to
think.
That has got to be the clincher.
I find it almost impossible to be
lieve that there are people who
still think that way. It simply is not
true! I look at being an Air Force
officer as a wonderful career pos
sibility with fantastic travel oppor
tunities and benefits. I also see it
as giving me the chance to serve
my country. I definitely do not
plan on ever "picking up a gun in
anger" and shooting someone.
Please don't deny those of us
in ROTC on this campus the right
to choose and pursue a particular
career field — even if it is with the
Armed Services.
Rhonda S. Ohman
Junior — French
Freeze tuition
Thanks to statements made
recently by the Governor’s office,
this has been a good week for
students in Oregon’s public four
year colleges and universities.
Your support Wednesday on
behalf of freezing tuition for non
resident undergraduates is most
encouraging. Non-resident un
dergraduate tuition in Oregon’s
public institutions is already
higher than that in every other
state west of the Mississippi
River. Further increases in tuition
such as those proposed in your
original budget recommendation
threaten to drive students away.
It benefits the state, we believe,
to draw students here to attend
Oregon’s public institutions of
higher education. Students from
Oregon gain from exposure to
students from elsewhere around
the country, and non-residents
provide vital dollars to help keep
our schools open with a full edu
cational program, an ever-more
difficult job in a period of declining
enrollments. Finally, the
economic benefit alone that the
state's economy realizes from
healthy institutions of higher edu
cation (over $104 million in
economic activity generated by
the University of Oregon alone
during fiscal year 1976-1977)
would justify the less that $1 mill
ion it would take to freeze tuition
for non-resident undergraduates
over the next two years.
Education is a clean industry
and one from which the state be
nefits a great deal. We commend
your support so far and look for
ward to continued advocacy for
our needs.
Mark Cogan
ASUO Vice President for
State Affairs
Outside department
I wish to thank Debra Blagg for
misinterpreting my opinion col
umn on the ROTC. This way I
have another opportunity to ex
press my views while correcting
her errors.
First of all I did not argue that
ROTC instructors do not reflect
any diversity of background in
education and experience, but
simply that one would expect a
far greater diversity within a regu
lar university department. Their
ideological commitment, in par
ticular, would not be one which
must fit within the present pers
pective of our U.S. military, for an
indigenous department would not
have as one of its “primary mis
sions" the recruitment of emp
loyes for the Military.
Secondly, I did not argue that
any or all of the students who re
ceive ROTC stipends would
necessarily go elsewhere if such
stipends were not available. What
I did say is that "it could be ar
gued" that such is the case for
some of those students. Person
ally I have no intention of so argu
ing; indeed, it might weaken my
overall position to so argue. It
seems Blagg is so eager to find
fault with my opinion that she at
tacks reasons for as well as
reasons against ROTC, the only
criteria being whether an oppo
nent or a friend states them.
Finally, I do agree with Blagg
that students should have some
say as to whether or not the
ROTC remains on campus, but I
wonder as to her criteria. She
seems to believe that as long as
there is any interest shown by
students in the program, it should
continue. Perhaps I am wrong,
but I do not recall her getting so
upset at the cuts in regular Uni
versity programs such as CSPA
and the School of Librarianship
She seems more concerned with
preserving an outside department
created, staffed and sustained by
the Department of Defense than
in preserving full-fledged mem
bers of the academic institution.
Andy Thompson
University Counseling Center