Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 6, 1978)
Letters A word of thanks On behalf of Kim and ourselves we would like to thank the many, many loving, generous, warm hearted people who helped her throughout her battle for life against leukemia. She loved life and tried to live it to the fullest — never giving up — rarely com plaining much. She wanted us to do the same — and not to be sad. We thank God for the time we had with her, but we realize she has finally found peace. May that peace extend to each of you. As she has said so many times in the past: “Words alone can never express our feelings of ap preciation and gratitude to the many, many people who so un selfishly gave of themselves, whether it was prayers, blood, time, money, services, etc.” Another expression she used was: "What greater love than to give of one’s self.” We can add little to this, except that Kim loved people and they loved her. So to all you wonderful people we (the family of Kimberlee Marie Kom mann Wilson) simply say “THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR HEARTS!!!” Jim and Dee Kommann and family Protest needs support I believe that workers and stu dents at the University and in the Eugene community should sup port those who put themselves on the line with the recent South Af rica protests, despite possible prior disagreements with them over political issues. Those who are quick to criticize when people are arrested over political issues should ask themselves what kind of support they would like if they were arrested. Also to those who say that this form of protest is not "furthering the cause of divesti ture" I would ask what sacrifices have you made in the past year (or past twenty years) to attack the barbaric South African ruling re gime? The infection from Vorster and his revolting ruling clique has been spreading around the world from before the Vietnam War, and continues after it. Those in Eugene should do whatever they can to support the courageous re sistance movement of the South African people against the genoc idal Vorster regime. Make no mistake about the At torney General — "legal deci sions” are unfortunately not made according to law, as experience has shown, but according to what the ruling class judges is best for them. A concerted threat of further demonstrations and protests by students and workers is the only counteractive force available to ruling class interests — what else would you suggest? KEEP THE PRESSURE ON — SELL THE STOCKS! Richard Young Assistant prof., psychology More on part-timers As a part-time faculty member, I wish to respond to Gary Ley’s arti cle of Feb. 1 Although much of what Sunderland states is proba bly factual, it is also incomplete. Sunderland does not address himself to the financial burdens of part-time faculty members. Nor does he examine the psychologi cal burdens that face part-time fa culty. Part-time faculty are paid less; however, I would be the first to point out that they earn every cent they make. Many of the University’s part-time faculty are outstanding instructors, advisers or administrators. Most of my col leagues are paid part-time, but contribute many hours beyond their appointed FTE. Of course, the University saves money with its “rent-a-teacher system.” But look what the institu tion gets for its investments: dedi cated and competent individuals who are willing to work for less. Unfortunately, it is the part timer that is cut when the budget needs further trimming. And why not? The problem of contracts are minimized because part-time fa culty members have short-term contracts that are usually subject to annual review. Also, most part time individuals pose little or no threat to the system because they lack the security to challenge any policy or administrative decision. Personally, I believe that the University makes wise invest ments when they hire part-timers. The only problem is “you get more than you bargained for.” Dan Garther Director of Academic Advising -Washington toda> .... — Marston case: politics as usual? By WALTER R. MEARS AP Special Correspondent WASHINGTON — an exercise in mountain-making, the case of David W. Marston is a classic. President Carter could have cut it back to molehill size but not without an admission he refuses to make—that his campaign pro mise to take politics out of the ap pointment of prosecutors is one he hasn’t been able to keep. Instead, Carter insists that the ouster of Republican Marston as U.S. attorney in Philadelphia is compatible with his campaign statements. “I made a campaign commit ment that any appointee to a posi tion as U.S. attorney or a judge ship would be appointed on the basis of merit and this campaign commitment will be carried out,” the president said the other day. The commitment went beyond that. “All federal judges and pro secutors should be appointed strictly on the basis of merit, without any consideration of polit ical aspect or influence,” Carter told Democratic platform draftsmen in 1976. There was more. Carter said the attorney general “must be re moved from politics,’’ made inde pendent, and given a five-year term, subject to removal from of fice only for cause. No more has been heard of the latter proposal. Carter has set up selection boards to recommend nominees for federal appeals courts and has encouraged the same system for the selection of district court judges who are, by long custom, recommended by their senators. Misinterpreted In a letter appearing in the Jan. 30 Emerald, I did not express a “Love it or leave it” attitude toward protest. If you think you knew what I meant, then think twice. If you knew what I meant, then you would not have written what you did. I don’t mind an expressed opin ion. I do mind seeing my name connected with such a maladroit melange in contradicting and dis That leaves the prosecutors— U.S. attorneys—and they are still being picked the old-fashioned way. That means patronage. There’s nothing wrong with it. As a matter of fact, it generally works pretty well. No one expects a president to keep his predecessor’s Cabinet. By cus tom, and by law, the 93 federal prosecutors are subject to the same terms of employment. So this administration, like those before, has been replacing Republican U.S. attorneys with Democrats. Most have gone quietly although some, like Philip Van Dam of Detroit, refused to re sign. The Justice Department fired him. Marston might have been a good one to leave alone, at least for a while. He had made waves with his political corruption inves tigations. Carter walked into a more seri ous problem when he relayed to Attorney General Griffin Bell the urging of Rep. Joshua Eilberg, D-Pa., that Marston be replaced quickly. Carter says he did not know at the time that Eilberg was the target of an investigation. And the whole episode was magnified because Carter had campaigned for a change in the system. For all his insistence that the pledge is being kept, 65 of the 66 U.S. attorneys he has appointed are Democrats. Again, that’s fine. The people elected a Democratic president, and Carter noted that he had said during the campaign that when all else was equal, he would choose appointees whose philosophy meshed with his. torted logic. If you’ve the desire to speak, then you would be wise to speak for yourself. If you’ve the desire to think, then you might consider standing up to relieve some of the pressure. I did not think my ideas would be so narrowly construed. Do you value those notions but consider them idealistic and implausible in the shadow of modern reality? Why presume that individuals like Ian are not capable of realizing the fallacy in their “sense of life?” “The fact is at this point we have about one-third of the U.S. attor neys around the country who are Republicans” he said. Although he didn’t say so, they are left over from the previous administration — and their job se curity is shaky at best. Carter said that when he took office here were only three Demo crats U.S. attorneys. He said Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford didn’t go around appointing Democrats. That’s true. But neither did they say that they wouldn't make politi cal appointments. Marston certainly was one. He was an aide to Sen. Richard S. Schweiker, R-Pa., when Ford, late in his term , appointed him U.S. attorney for eastern Penn sylvania. Ironically the whole business has put Republicans in a position to piously protest Carter’s use of the system under which Marston was appointed. The Republican National Committee has demanded a con gressional investigation of what it calls an abuse of power. There weren’t any complaints from that quarter when Republicans were wielding the same power. The morning after his 1972 re election, Nixon ordered all his ap pointees to submit signed resigna tions so that he could get rid of people he wanted to replace. The Republicans didn’t demand an investigation then. Although as things turned out, they should have. Has anyone ever approached these people with mind and reason, instead of a knife as sharp as the one they hold? Rational, individual choice should not be li mited to University students. The notion that one man can hold his existence, like an axe, over another man’s head is irrational. Change is in the breeze. Doo Waa! David Greene Sophomore, Economics axe x MO W06. Aop p&ople cob nmp ne or 0OREP He OB Hper hh tm 1M6S / Dow r AM OLP I w Fane m&ar m MPCmHHf AUP CH-H MV U5RV65. l/ou ASC- UHV IS "Mxf lOHAT WAS I AU5W6R CUU I me cm&ev. iu vom I U6-1EUR7. If)--' iio h&e r TAUc MUCH, eerwe!
