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