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