Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 18, 1978)
✓ Editorial Bill rejected once, but not quite killed Every once in a while, a piece of notorious legislation arises from the depths of bad intentions and worse ideol ogy to threaten civil liberties. Two years ago, Senate Bill One, touted as a comprehensive revision of the federal criminal code, was introduced — and rejected — by the Congress. It was rejected only in the face of wide-reaching public outcry against the repressive nature of the bill. But to be rejected is not to be killed. The bill has been reworked and is once again dragging its lugubrious provi sions over the liberties of us all! Now known as Son of SB-1,” the bill carries the number SB-1437. If ever a bill seemed dead set on cramming every imaginable threat to civil liberties into one "comprehen sive” package, SB-1 was that bill. And the recent revival of the legislation proves no better. SB-1437 covers everything from allowing law enfor cers to extend their enforcement to people who were not involved in a crime to sanctioning the use of evidence obtained illegally to prosecute defendants. Although many of the provisions of SB-1 have been diluted somewhat in SB-1437, the potential for abuse of power — both police and government — remains intact. All of these and more are included in the bill: Protec tion of government actions from physical interference, pro tection of the military from political opposition, broad au thority to order crowds to disperse, severe obscenity laws and repressive probation and parole provisions. It's a cacophony of transgression; a sad testament to the decay of civil liberties. In its every word, it’s an antonym to the constitution. Only with a public outcry will this bill follow its parent to the slag heap of outrageous laws, where it belongs. When our Senator and Congressman return to Oregon for May's primary election, that will be the time to confront them with this issue. Letters To the IFC... I am writing this letter in re sponse to your recent decision to cut back funding for the Native American Student Union's annual pow wow. The reasoning behind this cut, as I understand it, is that Native American students should, like “other minority groups,” charge admission to alleviate some of the costs of yet another “minority cultural event.” This de cision angers me. For the past six years I have taken advantage of the invitation extended to the community by NASU and have been one of the growing number of guests attend ing their pow wow. The pow wow is a celebration — a time Indian people come together to meet old friends, become acquainted with new ones, get together with aunts, uncles, grandparents, children, celebrate their traditions and par ticipate in the season. In friend ship, non-Indians are extended the opportunity to join in. An ad mission charge is contradictory to the whole spirit of the pow wow. It turns an event with integrity into another white-washed sideshow curiosity. This angers me. As for the hosts of this event, may I remind the IFC that NASU is not yet another “minority group." You members of the board as well as those of us of ethnic com munities are the sons and daugh ters of immigrants with something to learn about good manners. One does not charge guests admis sion; one does not extend friend ship by hawking tickets. The IFC of the past ten years have had the good sense and sensibility to recognize the role the pow wow plays not only within the University community but within the Eugene-Springfield area and the state of Oregon as a whoie. People come from all over to share in this event. Perhaps this particular board might find it to their benefit and enjoyment to ac cept the invitation to participate in this year’s celebration (May 5, 6, and 7 at Roosevelt Junior High School). I have faith that the spirit of the pow wow will be more con vincing than anything further I might have to say. D. Mifta Joo Native American Student Union Keep up with GTFs We read, after months of little news on this subject, that negotia tions between the University ad ministration and the GTFF have reached impasse. What hap pened during those months that brought things to this sorry state, and what does it mean to the larger University community? The members of the GTFF en tered negotiations last fall, naive and hopeful, trying to improve their own working situations as well as the quality of academic life at the University. The University administration entered the negotiations jealously determined to relinquish none of its preroga tives and to keep GTFs (who do most of the undergraduate teach ing in some departments) at bare subsistence wages After months of near-fruitless effort, the GTFF has shed its naivete and has made many concessions, trying to be reasonable, wishing to reach agreement. The administration has given up absolutely nothing of substance, yet righteously pro -opinion-------— | Time for some changes at ASUO Submitted by Jim Dowhower ASUO Pres, candidate, Junior, Architecture and Allied Arts This university is plagued by academic and fi nancial difficulties, that in combination constrain the ease of access, erode the quality of an expensive education investment, and risk producing ill equipped professional potentials upon graduation. Fresh solutions are needed now to protect students and their various departments One such solution in circulation is student initiated — REVENUE GEN ERATION, which addresses the full spectrum of uni versity difficulties. "Revenue generation” is the establishment of business cooperatives (student operated and con trolled), designed to broaden curriculums by provid ing practicum experience. Course credit, ‘letters of recommendation’, and student employment are among the principal benefits. For example, Architecture and Allied Arts, Busi ness, Law, and Science majors could organize a co-op to research/design/market Solar Energy Sys tems’ components. Scientific analysis would trans form into detailed study and eventual design of cer tain ‘Solar’ components. Business students would assist in the marketing process of our newly formed innovations, while Law students would help with pa tent procedures and general legalities. Other co-ops might include: Professional Re cording Studios, ASUO General Contractors/Realty, University Press and Duplication, Artist’s Design/Marketing Collaborative, Credit Union; Crea tive Photo Workshop, ASUO Brewery, Handcrafted Book Binding, travel agency Instructional Presenta tions and Wind Production (bottling and marketing). These are the few co-op possibilities I’ve researched — which only affect seven out of the 18 schools on campus — so, as you can see, the real impetus will lie with YOU, detailing your own co-ops to supplement your schools’ curriculum. Participating students would be on salary pro portional to the profit. A strong co-op would yield higher wages. And to “internalize” this generated money on campus, a simple system would be de vised to circulate all salary money into “credits”, exchangeable on campus for either goods or ser vices, such as, food at the EMU or Food Co-op, Housing, supplies, day care, tuition, etc. “Internaliz ing” co-op money increases the “purchasing power" of the dollar, due to the ASUO’s non-profit, tax-free status .. non-taxable money. The concept of generating revenue for student purposes is a more desireable solution to the university’s difficulties than Pres. Boyd’s budget re ductions. Budget cuts are dead-end solutions, and poor solutions in succession serve only to compound the difficulties. Because of Boyd’s orders to his administrators to “cut away the fat” at any place, the University is now suffering from a problem much worse than money — MORALE. One has only to listen to the horror stories afloat in any department to know that faculty and GTF’s are getting the worst kind of treat ment, with students and student services next in line (Shallow curriculums; discontinued courses and schools; unrenewed contracts of non-tenured, qual ity lecture professors; reduced school budgets; in sufficient funding’ of student services, and spiraling tuition costs). People are being mislead. Faith needs to be restored in our Deans, as well as in Boyd. Things are a mess not because there is no money, but because no one is fighting back. For too long faculty, GTF’s, and students have allowed the administration to shove them around. “Cutting away" at the problem simply commits itself to further misfortune. It is, there fore, our collective interest to take up the fight to protect our education investment. The Legislature has, since the early part of this decade, consistantly cut funding levels for the schools. Isn’t it about time that this university ex plained itself to the people of this state, the taxpayers! This university has failed to educate the public on the metamorphosing “Role of Scholarship’—the balanc ing of lecture material with the professional de mands. Taxpayers need to have explained to them where individual school curriculums are shallow, why the critical need for realignment and how new stu dent and faculty initiatives meet those concerns. The chance is coming soon, as the Oregon Legislative assembly resumes public hearings next January. I say we, as Associated Students of the University, must take the fight to the Leg slat ure directly. No one will do it for us! If Boyd's current tactics are left unchecked, then what remains of this Liberal Arts university may soon be listed as Lean Arts. Students are banning to voice their concerns. The question remains, “how willing are those dissatisfied faculty, GTFs and stu dents to stand up and fight against things as they now are?’ claims its eagerness to sit down anytime to “continue negotiating”, presumably into the summer or the 21 st century, to postpone set tlement until the GTFF is finally dead. What can we do? I urge all non-affiliated GTFs to become members of the GTFF. For a fe* month’s dues, it is the best invest ment you can make, and will yielc return in the form of a better con tract. This is the most effective way to improve the union’s posi tion in the upcoming mediatec negotiations. I also urge all under graduates to inform themselves about this situation and to express their opinions — remember, oui working conditions are your learn ing conditions. Robert Jordan Graduate, Biology Support workers A Republican from Vida, Bill Rogers, seeks re-election to Oregon's House of Representa tives, saying he will continue legis lative work on “workers compen sation" laws (3/7 page 3A). State Representative Bill Ro gers’ biased points of view and conflict of interests are two reasons he should not be re elected to office! First of all, Rogers affiliation with the insurance industry, and their desire for passage of work mens compensation destructive Senate Bills 1048 and 1050, should have precluded his House vote for said Bills, but it did not. Secondly, Rogers’ biased 1 /26/77 (Springfield News) ques tioneer lacked truth and led read ers to a negative response, that in turn was used by him to support the insurance industries destruc tion of workmens compensation laws: “Should compensation for injured employees be increased if the cost of the program drives employers from Oregon and further increases consumer prices?!” Thirdly, Rogers was supplied corrected information about his self-serving and unobjective workmens compensation posi tions but failed to reply or weigh the evidence (lacking competition could bring the price of a 2 X 4 down, not an injured workmens claim and stock market losses cause increase premiums, not the injured workmen)! John Reed 1295 “B” St. Springfield
