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!