(--editorial
Press freedom threatened
The U.S. Department of Justice, cast
ing doubt upon its very title, Tuesday filed
an Amicus curiae, or “friend of the court”
brief, with the U.S. Supreme Court asking
that more power be given to police agen
cies — specifically, that they be given the
power to search newspaper offices for
evidence in criminal cases.
The case came to the U.S. Supreme
Court from that paragon of the American
system of government and freedom —
California. The case stems from a police
raid of the offices of the Stanford Univer
sity newspaper, the Stanford Daily. Early
in 1971, some police officers were injured
during a student demonstration in the ad
ministration offices of the local hospital.
The police apparently decided to take the
law into their own hands and unexpec
tedly raided the newspaper offices looking
for photographs they could use to identify
the demonstrators. The police searched
the paper’s photo laboratory, file cabinets,
desks and waste baskets, but couldn’t find
anything they could use.
A federal judge ruled the search uncon
stitutional because the police had not at
tempted to get a subpoena for the material
they wanted. The police apparently
bypassed the subpoena because of a
Stanford Daily policy of destroying evi
dence in the event of demonstrations — a
policy the paper used to guarantee
anonymity to news sources.
The Justice Department is now support
ing the District Attorney of San Mateo
County and the Palo Alto police in seeking
the power for police to enter newspaper
offices armed only with a seach warrant.
That would, if the court supports the posi
tion, give police agencies all over the na
tion the right to raid any newspaper office.
That is a power that verges on police-state
tactics and it is perhaps the most flagrant
attempted rape of the First Amendment to
come along in years. We’re surprised the
Supreme Court even agreed to hear the
case, and we re still further surprised the
V.
Justice Department would support such
pernicious powers. We hope the court in
tends to hear the case in order to bury
requests like this one forever.
In recent struggles for press freedom,
newspapermen have in some cases gone
to jail for refusing to reveal confidential
sources of information. If confidential
sources are revealed, information is
buried because sources will never tell re
porters anything that may damage them
selves. These cases have led to the idea
of “shield laws,” under which a reporter
may withhold the names of news sources.
Oregon has such a law. But the Stanford
Daily case takes the argument away from
the newspapers and the courts and gives
it to the police, subverting the court pro
cess and giving the police the power to
take what the reporters and editors have
refused to give to the courts.
If a newspaper reporter is subpoenaed,
he can go to court to argue against the
reason for that subpoena. If the reporter’s
newspaper is searched by the police,
however, the reporter and the editors
have nothing to say about it.
Newspapers have been arguing that
the relationship between reporters and
their sources of information is similar to
the relationships between doctors and
their patients. Opponents to this view
argue that the police should be able to get
information from newspapers the same
way they can obtain information from
anyone else. But if police can raid news
paper offices at any time with only a
search warrant, sources of information
about pressing social issues will never
surface, and neither will the issues.
If the First Amendment is worth any
thing more than the paper it's written on,
the Supreme Court should rule against
the police. And the Justice Department,
supposedly the most responsible justice
agency in the nation, should call off its
dogs lest they trample that cherished
document into the ground.
-opinion
State Board stalling
Submitted by
Pat Zurcher for the
South Africa Liberation Support Committee
The State Board of Higher Education is trying to
take back the victory won by Oregon students last
term in getting rid of stocks in Southern Africa!
Their foot-dragging and “legal” maneuvering is
an outrage! The issue is clear — whether to support
South African apartheid or oppose it. While the Board
stalls for time, the rising struggle of the peoples of
Southern Africa continues to face bloody repression.
We must support the peoples of Southern Africa
now! It’s clear that it wasn't enough to force the Board
to agree to dump the stock. We’ve got to continue the
fight until the stock is actually dropped — and
beyond.
There will be a demonstration on Wednesday,
Jan. 25, at 12:30 p. m. to demand: “‘State Board — No
More Stalling! Sell the Stock NOW!" Oppose the
stalling of the Board on this issue and stop it from
being swept under the rug — attend the demonstra
tion! It is important to have a militant action at this
time to aim our anger squarely at the Board because
it meets two days later on Friday, Jan. 27, in Mon
mouth. Come to the Jan. 27 meeting to demand
divestment now (carpools to Monmouth will leave
from the EMU Terrace).
The Board actively opposed divestiture right
from the start — and only voted to divest when over
200 students put them up against the wall at their
Nov. 18 meeting. Cornered, they voted to sell the
stocks. But almost as soon as the decision was made
Attorney General Redden suddenly “discovered” it
might be “illegal” and — seeing a way out of the vote
— the Board decided to halt the divestiture before it
got started. At their Dec. 16 meeting in Portland they
made it formal — voting to put the divestiture on ice
while Redden seeks a way to get out of it altogether.
Why didn’t the Board mention this matter of
“legality” before or even when they voted? That’s a
good question — since they admitted at the Dec. 16
meeting that they’d known about it all along. The fact
is that the Board gives lots of investment instructions
and guidelines to its investment counselors, and no
one questions them. It was only when the issue of
South African investments came up that this problem
was suddenly “discovered.”
Why doesn’t the Board go ahead and divest and
then see if anyone challenges the legality of the
action? Also a good question! When they vote to
raise tuition they don’t wait around to see if anyone
will question their action before socking it to us.
Once again these representatives of bankers
and rich businessmen on the Board are showing us
that they oppose the interests of the people of
Oregon and Southern Africa. They’ve made it clear
that it’s up to us to carry this fight through!
Events in Southern Africa are rapidly reaching
the boiling point. Popular leader Steven Biko is
beaten to death by the police and his murderers are
cleared by an investigation by the racist govet nment.
Thousands defy police to attend his funeral. Little
news filters out about resistance from South African
blacks, but the growing level of repression by the
Vorster government has exposed the increasing
desperation of its position.
In Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) the liberation forces
already control large sections of the countryside.
These events in Southern Africa are bringing more
and more people into the struggle here against U.S.
involvement in Southern Africa.
It’s clear we have a long way to go with the
divestiture fight and a lot more to do to really build
support for South African liberation. This involves
many things — working to stop sales of the Kruger
rand, educating broad numbers of students about
what’s really coming down there, and building a
movement that can counter any attempts of the U.S.
government and corporations to perpetuate en
slavement in South Africa.
-editorial
Pay the wage
The University has apparently decided not to comply with
the new minimum wage, which brought the wage up from its
1977 level of $2.30 per hour to the current $2.65 per hour.
Because of a Supreme Court ruling of 1976, the University is not
bound to pay more than 85 percent of the prevailing minimum
wage, but an administration policy statement of August 1977
states that the University will comply with the minimum wage.
Since the policy has not officially been changed, the University is
violating its own guidelines.
Apparently, the University wasn’t expecting the wage to be
raised as much as it was. The minimum for this year is not
substantially over what the University now pays students, but the
administration is keeping a wary eye on the future. The wage is
scheduled to increase to $3.35 by January of 1981. The ad
ministration feels that raise could bite a substantial amount of
money out of its operating expenses.
The University has been more than fair in its pay scales for
student workers in the past. As of 1977, virtually every student
employee was paid a wage well over the minimum. Of the nine
positions now under the minimum wage, all of them were above
the old minimum. Many of the nine positions were close to the
new minimum wage, and the lowest pay was $2.40 per hour. The
University is to be congratulated for its fairness.
However, the University should comply with the new
minimum wage scale. Students are hard-pressed by inflation in
the same way other workers are, and should be paid what the
federal government believes is a fair minimum. We applaud the
University’s position of paying a good wage to students, but we
think it should follow through with that policy.
According to University Personnel Director Jack Steward,
the number of students involved in the below-minimum wage
scale is not now known; nor is the financial impact of raising
those nine positions to the minimum. Steward says the number
is probably small, but he hesitates to set a figure before a
controller’s report of the exact numbers is released. That report
is expected to be completed within the next few days.
Since the number of students is relatively small, and the
wages they now receive are not far below the new minimum
wage, the conclusion is that the financial impact of the raise this
year would not be vast. The minimum should be paid this year.
The University is understandably wary about the future
increases. But the financial picture for the University for the next
three years may be affected by a number of sources. For exam
ple, enrollment figures probably can’t be projected that far into
the future, and money sources such as the State Legislature
may be sympathetic to the University in responding to the
minimum wage. These variables are now uncertain, so the Uni
versity would be well advised to study the minimum wage for
students next year, when the financial impacts are virtually
guaranteed to be greater.
Steward explains that students will receive pay raises to the
tune of four percent in April and five percent in December. But
just about the time those raises take effect, the minimum wage
will jump again. Steward says the University will look once again
at its policy in April to decide whether or not the minimum waae
should be met.
But we think the University should study the controller’s
report when it comes out soon. Since the financial impact of
raising the nine positions to the minimum wage would not be out
of the world, the wage should be met, and the University should
abide by its August policy statement
THE VIRTUALLY
unrestrained spread
OF CONVENTIONAL
WEAPONRY THREATENS
STABILITY IN EVERY
REGION OF
THE WORLD.
llittilt ilitliliitiliiii
1