✓ 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