Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 10, 1978)
Letters stock issue It has become increasingly dear to more and more students that the University is intent on supporting the racist white regime of South Africa. The state board and the Attorney General are seeking to hide their complicity in a legal smokescreen by obscunng the fact that the University owns the stock, the state board directs and controls these stocks and the Oregon Investment Council man ages the stocks. Students had worked for over a year, by voting in a referendum, picketing, demonstrating and meeting with the state board re sulting, finally, in last November’s vote to divest. At this point divesti ture was out of the hands of stu dents and faculty and faith was put into the state board and their vote. This victory was immediately sub verted. When Attorney General Redden informally questioned the authority of the State Board to di vest the board agreed to postpone divestiture immediately. Since former Attorney General Johnson already ruled in November 1976 that the state board has ultimate authority over the investments of its stocks why did they not im mediately divest? This stalling is nothing more than an attempt to outwait stu dents thinking they'll forget or lose interest. Perhaps the board can wait tiH summer, when students are gone; give the CMC control; then stand around and say how it is out of their hands, their hands are dean, they too feel and agree with students that apartheid is wrong and should be abolished. This behavior on the part of the state board makes it dear that in spite of what they say; the ruling dass they serve determines their real intentions. In other words, the only way we can be certain the state board will divest is to stand together and let them know their smokescreen is nothing more than the emperor’s new dothes. The first trial for the students who were arrested is Tues. April 11th. All students are asked to join us in demanding the University drop the charges and go through with their decision to dump the stocks. Terri Dach Southern Africa Liberation Support Committee Brutal error As I was passing my orbs over Jock Hatfield s March 31st article on graffiti, a brutal error suddenly reared its ugly head. Hatfield wrote that the message, "Jesus saves but Esposito scores on the rebound" was endemic to "bas ketball crazed North Carolina. Well, I was stunned I felt like I'd just caught a Nolan Ryan fastball on the forehead. Not onfy did Hat field get the birthplace of this de lightful little blurb wrong but he had the incorrect sport. This particularly magnificent example of graffiti made its debut in Boston in the early seventies when Phil Esposito, the greatest scorer in hockey history, was col lecting an awesome number of goals for the National Hockey League Bruins. So try to get the facts right, okay Jock? By the way, how many touch downs does Bill Walton have this season? Gary Ley Senior, Journalism Letters policy The Emerald will accept and try to print all letters and opinion columns containing fair comment on ideas and topics of concern or interest to the University community. Letters and opinions will be run on a first-come, first-served basis. Both letters and opinion columns must be typewritten, using 65 character margins, and should be triple-spaced. Letters and opinions must be signed and the author's field of study (or faculty status) noted. Laissez gay taire : Submitted by Thomas Ball, Chairman, Oregon Young Libertarians Business Graduate Student, Oregon State The issue of gay rights has stir red up a storm of controversy in recent months. The focal point of this storm has been the so-called "gay rights ordinances' that a number of of cities have enacted. These measures typically prohibit discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” in the areas of public and private employment, housing and accomodations. Last year Anita Bryant's anti homosexual crusade in Miami at tracted national attention. This spectacle promises to be* re peated locally as Eugene voters consider repealing a local gay rights ordinance in the May prim ary elections The tragic aspect of the con troversy is that both sides are wrong. What we are witnessing is a battle for power between two special interest groups. Each seeks to use the power of gov ernment as a dub to compel com pliance with its particular moral code. Nowhere are the rights of individuals being considered The move to pass gay rights or dinances has usually been in P*ge 4 . itiated by gay organizations seek ing to end legal harassment of homosexuals. Homosexuals have good reason to be concerned. The government has systematically discriminated against “non heterosexual” individuals. It is long past time to repeal all laws that discriminate against oppres sive laws because of their sexual preference. Specifically, repeal oppressive laws in the areas of marriage, government employ ment, military service and immi gration, to say nothing of archaic laws held over from the Dark Ages that make certain consensual sexual relations criminal offenses. But in their efforts to remove op pressive legislation, many gay or ganizations have committed the mistake of accepting the basic premises of their opponents. Those groups advocating gay rights ordinances have apparently accepted the premise that it is legitimate to use political power to oppress those individuals that hold opposing viewpoints. They would reverse the clubs, and make it a crime for any pnvate in dividual to refuse to associate with homosexuals. Ironically, in so doing, they undermine the very principle which justifies the rights of homosexuals to engage in any voluntary relationships they wish: '1 KEEP TfliJNdr MNSEtf T€ PENTAGON WOUO? NEVER EXPOSE US TO DANGEROUS RADIATION N2VEIS — Bor how is rr wve Given us uranhuaa Bulled and we're starting to 6i£iw in m park 9* .opinion— Impasse: support the GTFF Submitted by Bill Ratteree and Meridith Reynolds of the GTFF On Wednesday, March 30, the Graduate Teach ing Fellows Federation (GTFF) declared an impasse in negotiations with the University and requested state mediation. The GTFF represents graduate teaching and research assistants at the University. Since earty October we have been in negotiations for our first contract with the University. Our frustration over the slow progress and lack of results finally led us to ask for state intervention (mediation) to help us move faster. We have suspended these negotiations for two reasons. First, the University has made very few real concessions in the six months of negotiations. They have offered no salary increase for underpaid GTFs but have even witheld salary increases already budgeted by the legislature until negotiations are concluded. They have refused to negotiate a health insurance plan with us. They have refused to negotiate many other items which they claim by state law do not have to be negotiated. These include such items as GTF appointments, work assign ments, duties, class size, and participation on de partmental committees. The final straw was the University's assertion that they could take away even those benefits and rights we now have if not included in the final contract. In other words, they refuse to negotiate items vital to our working conditions; then declare they will take these existing conditions away because they are not included in the contract. Catch-22 anyone? Second, and very importantly, the University has been stalling. After six months of negotiations we have agreement on only 8 articles out of more than 60 proposed. They have turned negotiating sessions into sterile debating forums, talked repeatedly about irrelevant and tangential questions, and in general tried to prolong these negotiations as long as possi ble. It is very clear to us why this has happened. The University hopes that by avoiding signing a contract this year they will frustrate GTFs to the point they will give up on collective bargaining. At best they may break the union by refusing to sign a contract at all. At least they hope to agree to a contract which gives GTFs no substantial economic benefits and essen tially preserves the status quo regarding working conditions. Unfortunately for University administrators, the GTFF is not going to evaporate overnight. This union is here to stay. We were voted in convincingly last year and we have continued to grow steadily in terms of membership and support. 300 GTFs now belong to the union with more joining each week. GTFs have indicated clearly they intend to see some changes made in the unilateral control over their working lives now exercised by the University. Any attempt to delay the signing of a contract will only increase antagonisms between GTFs and the University. It will only lead to greater tensions within the University affecting students, faculty, and GTFs. By law we cannot strike at this point. If however, mediation is not successful in solving our differ ences, then fact-finding by the state will be neces sary. If that produces no agreement then we will be forced to consider a strike. GTFs are not looking for excuses to go out on strike. But we will not allow ourselves to be pushed around indefinitely. We hope to resolve our differences and sign a contract this spring before we reach that stage. At this point, how ever, it is up to the University administration to de monstrate good faith and make the movement necessary to get agreement. Then maybe GTFs can return to their primary tasks of teaching, research, and study. Because ground rules have kept us from com municating with the University community, most people are surprised by the sudden barrage of infor mation and wonder what is happening. More impor tant, students and faculty are unclear as to the effect that negotiations have on education. It should be clear to everyone the importance of GTFs as employees. In many departments we teach 80 percent of the undergraduate students. We there fore have an important interest in the quality of edu cation, and are immediately responsible for that edu cation. The University claims that this is not true, that the administration shall determine what is best for undergraduates. Apparently what is best for under graduate education in departments such as Ro mance Languages are beginning language classes with enrollments of 30-40 students. These students do not get the education they pay for. Our negotia tions with the University vitally affect all students and faculty. The issues are fundamental. It is a question of democracy at the University and of workers rights to have a say in determining their working conditions. It is a question of education affecting all students as well. On Wednesdday, April 12, the ASUO is sponsor ing an open forum on the negotiations impasse. We urge students and faculty to attend. We encourage all students and faculty interested in supporting our efforts to contact GTF union members of the union office at 868 E. 13 (across from the bookstore), 344-0832. SUPPORT THE GTFF. the principle of freedom of associ ation. Just as free men have the right to associate for whatever pur poses they wish, not just those purposes popular or politically ap proved, so it is that we have the right to refuse to associate for whatever reasons we wish. The freedom not to associate is as preaous as the freedom to as sociate. These attempts to interpose politics in individual moral deci sions create a festering sore of intolerance. One group can only have its way by violating the rights of individuals that dissent. War is the norm, peace the impossible, with the public the biggest loser. The gay rights controversy pro vides a graphic example of the bit terness that is created when gov ernment attempts to regulate per sonal morality, There are no "gay rights" or straight rights". There are only individual rights. Both sides in this controversy would do well to heed the warning of former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis: "experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are be nificent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding ." Well put, we think. At the center of the gay rights controversy is a lack of an ade quate understanding of the proper role for government to play in a free society. It is not a legitimate function of government to enforce a particular life-style. Whether homosexuality is "good" or "bad" is no concern of the law in a tree society. The law exists to protect the right of each individual to make, and act upon, that decision for himself. Inherent in the concept of free dom, is the freedom to make un popular choices. Deny an indi vidual the right to choose between peaceful alternatives, and you deny him his liberty. Laissez faire. Monday, April 10, 1978
