/-Words from Wass-*
Conflicts halt legislative flow
I d like to point out from the start that I
don’t picture myself as a young Woodward
or Bernstein, and I have never wanted to
work for the Washington Post. Nothing
would please me more than to discover that
the Oregon Legislature is free of the kind of
activity that casts doubts on its actions. Un
fortunately, it just isn’t so. The fate of House
Bill 2008, which would ban the sale of soft
drinks and beer in plastic bottles in Oregon,
is a case in point.
A project of Rep. Grattan Kerans,
D-Eugene, HB 2008 was approved by the
House on May 10 and sent to the Senate for
consideration. On the House side, the bill
was heard by the Environment and Energy
Committee, chaired by Rep. Nancie
Fadeley, D-Eugene/Springfield. Once in
the Senate, the bill’s fortunes took a turn for
the worse. Sen. Pres. Jason Boe assigned
it to Senate Labor, Consumer and Busi
ness Affairs, chaired by Sen. Dick Groener,
D-Milwaukie.
Groener is not exactly a progressive
legislator, and given the fact his vice
chairer bottles soft drinks for a living, the
assignment was a tough blow to the bill.
And there’s yet another wrinkle to the situa
tion. Groener’s 26-year-old son Jim is em
ployed by Ted Hughes and Bob Davis, two
rather high-power lobbyists being paid to
defeat the bill.
The bill has been property of Groener’s
committee since May 12th, and is not
scheduled for its first hearing until June
13th, a date that makes the bill’s chances of
passing slim, if not nil. As chairer of the
committee, Groener decides when, if ever,
bills are heard and his late scheduling of HB
2008 is obviously an attempt to see that the
bill doesn’t become law this session.
Groener denies that there is any connec
tbn between his actions on HB 2008 and
his son’s employment. He points to the fact
that every legislator has some kind of job
during the interim, and the conflict of in
terest is as great in that situation as it is in
the case of he and his son.
From where I sit, the analogy doesn’t
hold. The voters in each district can easily
find out what their legislator does for a liv
ing, and can keep that fact in mind when
judging his or her performance during the
session. It’s a situation we have to expect in
a citizen legislature. But we don’t have to
expect conflicts like the ones surrounding
the assignment of HB 2008. The bill should
never have been sent to Groener’s commit
tee.
But Groener’s conflicts don’t stop with
HB 2008. His son’s employers also have an
interest in SB 500, which seeks to put off
the ban on fluoro-carbons adopted by the
1975 Legislature. The bill has passed both
the House and the Senate, but in different
forms, and was sent to a conference com
mittee. Groener was appointed to that con
ference committee despite the fact that his
son has spent much of the session tracking
the bill for Hughes and Davis, and in fact
attended the meetings of the conference
committee.
That should never have happened.
There are at least five other members of the
Senate as knowledgeable on the bill as
Groener, and recognizing the problems
presented by his son’s job, Groener should
have declined to sit on the committee.
Obviously, legislators don’t live in vac
uums, and there will always be conflicts of
interests. But every effort should be made
to reduce the role those conflicts play in the
legislative process. That hasn’t always
been done.
-opinio h
ROTC: principle or principal ?
Dear ROTC Supporter:
The faculty has been asked to
reconsider its vote abolishing
ROTC. I support the spirit of this
motion by asking you to recon
sider your stance on the ROTC
program at the University. I sus
pect the major reason you were
upset with the vote at the last fac
ulty meeting is that you are afraid
the State Board of Education, the
Alumni, the total Eugene
Springfield community, and most
important, the Oregon Legislative
Assembly would react adversely
to an anti-ROTC stance. In short,
the University would stand to lose
some protective influence and
perhaps also some funding.
I do not intend to downplay this
possibility. Instead I hope to per
suade you that this is a risk that is
worth taking, in fact, one the Uni
versity must take if it is to become
the type of scholarly institution you
have repeatedly said it should be.
I think you will grant that schol
arship is not to be equated with
vocational training. Yet if we were
to adopt wholeheartedly the prin
ciples inherent in the ROTC pro
gram the University would open its
doors to all outside agencies and
corporations who have sufficient
influence and money to establish
their own departments within the
University. The major functions of
these departments would be to
recruit talented students for their
agencies, screen out the inap
propriate ones and to offer the re
mainder the intellectual training
that is considered desirable or
necessary to prepare for a career
in the agency. In the process the
University would cease to function
as a university, it would instead
become a vocational training
center. There would be no lack of
students who would want it that
way, since these departments
could offer scholarships and also
guarantee employment after
graduation. But this is not what we
are about.
The essence of a university is
not vocational training. Nor can it
be simply equated with research.
More basic than research is a cer
tain type of ideological atmos
phere, an atmosphere which per
mits the greatest latitude possible
to exploration and exchange of
ideas. Ideally, the University is an
ideological marketplace, a re
search institution and a teaching
forum in that order. It is never, or
should be never simply a voca
tional training institution — not
that vocational training is bad, but
there are other, better places for it
to occur.
In order to ensure ideological
freedom we have adopted a
number of policies implicit and ex
plicit, such as tenure, faculty gov
ernance, preference for
graduates of other institutions in
hiring faculty, and strict overview
of grants from outside agencies.
By and large we are very careful
about contracting teaching ser
vices from outside the University,
and about letting representatives
from the outer society influence
teaching or research practices
within the University. We do these
things because no one else can
be expected to do so, and be
cause they need to be done in
order to build the insularity that the
University needs from intellectual
or political biases both within and
without the institution.
You know all this, perhaps bet
ter than I. Yet, for the moment, I
believe your sense of perspective
has been unduly influenced by
your concern for obtaining public
funding and public support. It is
understandable that this should
be so, but it is not desirable that it
continue. In the long run commit
ment to principles is more impor
tant for the life of the University
than obtaining of principal.
With your aid the University can
persuade the larger community of
its necessity to be free of the in
strusion of ROTC. Without such
aid the battle will be fought, but
perhaps not won.
Andy Thompson
University Counseling Center
Letters
Twisted and false
This letter is in regard to the ar
ticles you’ve printed concerning
the suspension of Cathy Aiken
from the 1976-77 Women’s Var
sity Basketball Team. The other
members of the team have re
mained silent on this matter long
enough.
We are tired of reading the
biased ’’facts’’ you've uncovered.
The Emerald has not fairly pre
sented this issue.
The decision to suspend Cathy
was Coach Heiny’s responsibility
and no one else’s. The suspen
sion has already been appealed
and upheld. It is a private matter
between the coach and the player
and should remain so.
The team is not in support of the
material printed—much of which
is twisted and false. The
Emerald's one-sided reporting
has misinformed the public and
we are not in agreement with what
has been printed in this paper.
Barb Riechers
Sophomore-Journalism
and nine cosigners
Counter-revolution
I would like to urge faculty
members to vote again to put
ROTC off campus. It is a shame
that all we have learned from the
Vietnam War has not been de
bated publicly, but it looks to me
as if the U.S. military has not
changed — they are pushing for
another bomber and a bigger
tank.
Eighty per cent of the officers in
Vietnam were provided for by
ROTC departments. Enlisted men
I have spoken with agreed: ROTC
officers were no match for experi
enced NLF commanders in Nam.
College is not a good preparation
for weir.
During the Vietnam War, at the
University Major McDaniels
taught an ROTC class in counter
insurgency, that is, counter
revolution. During the American
Bicentennial of our own revolu
tion, ROTC cadets among us
were probably the only ones
studying George Ill's mistakes
with the aim of fighting better
counter-revolutions.
ROTC continues to foster the
illusions of the most destructive,
and militarily the most counter
productive branches of our mili
tary: the U.S. Air Force and the jets
on our carriers. Those jets
bombed more people, made the
U.S. more enemies, wrecked
more harmless civilian targets,
burned more people and trees in
Vietnam than we will ever know.
But remember this: the Viet
namese had no Air Force!
I don't believe that the ROTC
program is a true academic pro
gram. I don’t believe that the
ROTC program has internalized
the lessons of Vietnam. The
ROTC is a military indoctrination
outpost, not an aware and public
serving academic department. It
does not have to own up to any of
the intellectual checks and bal
ances required of any other de
partment.
If ROTC is kept without any
major changes, it may lead to
another Vietnam closer to home.
Did the French people have to
vote for a war in Algeria, after all
they had learned in Indochina, for
there to be another colonial
counter-insurgency? Faculty
members owe it to the American
people to curb ROTC.
Peter Jensen
1035Vi Ferry Street, Eugene
Damaging ads
In the past month the Emerald
has printed at least four classified
ads that have dealt with the "de
mise" of the art department. On
our query it has been established
that the Emerald did not print them
as an in-house joke as we be
lieved they had. We would like to
see them stopped
Many people in the department
(FAA, Art Ed., Art history) are
bothered and concerned about
these ads. The department is far
from its deathbed except in its fi
nance. Granted, we are facing
problems The money is really
tight but the quality of education is
still as good as in any other de
partment. Defacing the depart
ment in this manner could run into
some legal problems, something I
would like to avoid.
In these times of cutbacks, ac
tion is being taken to ward off a
major cutback in the department.
These ads are taking their tolls on
our efforts.
Some people are assuming that
it is the architecture department
playing a prank. Unfortunately, it
is further separating the divide
that exists between the two major
departments.
It is my hope that the
individual(s) placing these ads will
direct his or her attentions to less
damaging pursuits. I also hope the
Emerald will think twice before
printing these ads in the future.
Robin Geer
SUAB No. 11
(FAA, Art. Ed., Art History)
TRANSATLAA/T/QOS ,
/