Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 22, 1978)
Letters Wrong focus In the last few days both a news story and an editorial have ap peared in the Emerald regarding the recent action taken to exdude “undergrads" from the law school. In neither of these articles did the writer do an adequate job of pre senting the facts. Both articles fo cused on the complaints about the “noise" and “uncleanliness” of non-law students as the reasons they were asked to leave the law school. Although these things contri buted to the decision, there were other factors (I feel are of great er importance) not even men tioned by the writers. This despite the fact that written memoranda explaining the decision were posted throughout the law school and that Dean Clark made a spe cial effort to personally explain to the students why the action was necessitated. In the interest of fairness I think the whole rationale for this action should be pre sented. First, the law library is set up for legal research. Law students are the primary users of the law li brary, but the policy has always been, and I am sure it will continue to be, that anyone doing bona fide legal research is welcome to use the law school resources. Secondly, law students pay a $300 a year “law resource fee” over and above the regular tuition that all students pay. This fee in large part goes to pay for the law library and other law school facilities. Thus law students are paying the same amount as other students to use the main Univer sity facilities as well as an extra amount to use the law school facilities. This would seem to me to be sufficient basis for differen tiating between law and non-law students as to their right to use law school and University facilities. Thirdly, there is a limited amount of space available in the law school. This is true as to the library, classrooms, lounge and halls, all of which were becoming very crowded. There are approx imately 480 students enrolled in the law school. There have been as many as 200 non-law students (needless to say they were not all doing legal research) in the build ing on a weekday evening. Obvi ously the law school was not de signed nor equipped to handle this number of additional students. A specific number of seats in the li brary must be available for law stu dents in order to keep our accredi tation. Classrooms are often used in the evenings for law school or ganizations or informal study groups. Fourthly, more subtle means were tried — to no avail. Lastly, and most importantly, it appears the real problem is that non-law students really have no good place to study. I realize the main library is less than com fortable and does not have so much as a lounge or vending machine area, and I can readily see how studying at the law school would be more pleasant. However, as Dean Clark sug gested to the students, this is a problem which should be taken up with the University administration —not put onto the law school. The law school is just not equipped to handle the role of ' general study hall” for the University. I would suggest that those who are outraged at non-law students (with the exception of those doing legal research) being excluded from the law school facilities direct their energies not toward a legal battle with the law school, but rather toward getting the rest of the University students a decent place to study. Janet English-Young Second Year Law Sci-fi questions In the recent article by Eric Maloney about science fiction he brings up the question, “Why should anyone have the right to avoid the realities which we all face?” It is unclear from the con text of the article whether he is seriously asking the question or simply stating one of the reasons — opinion 1 ASUO: active and thorough Submitted by Dave Tyler Member, Incidental Fee Committee Ever hear of the ASUO? It's you, the Associated Students of the University of Oregon, but more often it’s used to refer to the student government officers who “in theory" represent the student body. Last fall I again ran for re-election to the Inciden tal Fee Committee. The Emerald considered my candidacy a ploy for higher office. Last week a member of the EMU Board accused me of higher political aspirations when I requested that the EMU staff provide more detail in their budget document. This is my third term on the Incidental Fee Commit tee. During these last few years my goals as a rep resentative of the student body obviously have been to weigh carefully all fiscal considerations before the committee, but equally important, to create a sense of permanence in the ASUO. This is accomplished by working to promote stable programs, a well detailed budgeting criteria, program fiscal accounta bility in light of IFC guidelines, line-item justification in budgeting, long-term program and governance planning, creation of permanent documents on pro gram and governance body operations, creation of a useable student guide to programs, strengthening the professional ability and resources of the ASUO Executive, SUAB, IFC and EMU Board, and finally, increasing awareness and accountability to the stu dent body. Fortunately, I’m not the lone voice in most of these issues. The ASUO is slowly becoming more respon sive and responsible to the student body it serves. It’s my hope this progress continues, but until this sense of permanence is created, the ASUO will continue to under-utilize its resources. Most programs seem to start from scratch each fall. Are we an association with 30 years of experience, or an association with one year's experience 30 times? There is so much more left to do, and in a sense I’d like to be part of it, but frankly, in terms of personal development it's no longer worth it to me. At this time I plan to avoid the spring elections. There! Now I can continue to vote my conscience on the IFC, free from political accusations. In a sense, being in student government is like fighting windmills. I have problems in considering the process legitimate when the members of the IFC were elected by less than two percent of the student body. Students don’t care. Anyone still reading this letter is either highly unusual, or most probably closely tied to an ASUO program. I think the things I've accomplished have been valuable, but I have no way of knowing if I’ve been truly representing the in terests of the general student body. Until the ASUO can justify a mandate, or until a method is presented for doing so, I don’t feel I can justify holding ‘higher office." Some boring evening come sit in on an IFC budget hearing and see how your $93 incidental fee is spent. I think you’ll find it an activist, thorough process; one free from political motivation. the people who scorn science fic tion” do so. In any case the question is meaningless since it is based on a false assumption. Said assump tion being that science fiction is primarily an escapist literature. It is not. Most fiction of any type is es capist. We read it simply to break away from the hum-drum of daily existence and it is either more or less escapist depending on how well it relates to our lives and selves. SF is often mistakenly assumed not to relate to our lives at all. But let's backtrack a bit. In the 1930s and 40s, the infancy of science fic tion, several stories were pub lished concerning atomic energy and war, the population explosion and the energy crunch, all of which had little or no relation to the times in which the stories were written. Today it is easy to see their relevance. Had more attention been paid, not necessarily to the individual stories, which were sometimes very realistic but more often were faintly ridiculous (especially when viewed in the light of actual de velopments) but to the concepts themselves, then perhaps preven tive measures could have been taken and these problems and others wouldn’t have had the im pact on us that they have in fact had. Alas, they were passed over as escapist literature. If science fiction escapes, it escapes into re ality, future reality. (I don’t have the names of these stories handy as I write but if anyone is in terested I can get them.) Eugene George 1810 Harris, Eugene Moseley’s sincere I had the pleasure of working as a colleague of Gerry Moseley for the last five years. He has now become your Associate Provost. I have never met a person so sincerely dedicated to making a university both humane and effec tive. He has always been a person who thoughtfully considers all sides of an issue and then gives you a straight answer. You will like him. We will miss him. Bob Marff, Coordinator, Career Choice Center, University of Texas Gilmore to abstain I would like to clarify the confu sion on my voting record for the Gay People's Alliance. My votes were strictly on a personal, moral basis and were not intended to represent any special segment to the University population. In con cordance with my moral values, I cannot support the G.P.A., and in an effort to be fair and unbiased, I will abstain from voting on this program in the future. Mary Leoia Gilmore Senior, Psychology Incidental Fee Committee I'M OOWSOMPP kxyr fcrmv CHIU7HOOP BUT FOR AJJPV HARPVS CHILPHCOP. @#71)ue 1sfS2? MOT FOR MVOFP 51RL FRlgWPS Bor for CTOPV <5ARLAloP AMP Awu RomeeFORp A6 MV •<SlRO FRieUPS IF** EROUX 6ot for fl,6HAF>Y lame, ovsr OF? MAID STREgr, SMAaVI(-Fp, as. a. Page 4 Section A MOT FOR MV 8& Bur Lewis stoop AMP FAY HOFFEO AS MV PARSMT5 I PORT PIMP FOR MV RPAO PAST I PIMP FOR MV M5M past new op*w**p«. vojchcaw
