Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 25, 1978)
Letters Correction Editors note: Because of a typesetter's error, an important phrase was left out of an April 19 letter by Math Department GTFs Dan Zwick, Charles Burbank and Bob Damiano about the GTFF University negotiations. Here is how the paragraph in the letter should have read: Although fair and equitable treatment of GTFs in all depart ment should be a goal agreed on and aspired to by the administra tion as well as the GTFs, items that deal with this matter have been a major bone of contention at the negotiating table. It is incon ceivable to us that the University has even objected to an anti discrimination clause that would ensure the rights of individuals in cluding those not already specifi cally protected by law. We feel it is to the benefit of all GTFs, faculty and the administration that a con tract be worked out that emobides the principles and speaks to the concerns mentioned above, and that it be signed and accepted as soon as possible. Article in poor taste I feel called to respond to your cover feature of April 18th, “Holocaust Hotel." While the sub ject was significant, the style and references in it were in quite poor taste. While the nation is painfully con fronted with the reminder of war time atrocities in the NBC-TV series “Holocaust,” and reminded of the free world s complicity in these events, we must not make light of the sufferings of other peo ple and nations. The significance of the Holocaust caused far reaching effects—even in today’s society. Lane County is currently facing issues of civil and personal free doms. If we do not heed the mes sage of previous decades', then we are forced to repeat their follies and tribulations. I do not believe the Daily Emerald wishes to es pouse such dangerous ideals. Eric Landau United Methodist Minister Center on Dying and Survival Feldman’s contact almost non-existent The April 19 Emerald quotes Gary Feldman, ASUO President, as saying that the EMU Board has been “terrible” this year and hasn’t lived up to his expectations. I’m not surprised that we haven’t lived up to Gary's expectations since Gary’s contact with the EMU Board has been almost non existent this year. The EMU Board has attempted since November to work with the ASUO in developing another EMU Tavern proposal. We started a Revenue Proposals committee and Feldman named three of the five members. Two of the people Feldman named never attended any comm'ttee meetings and were asked to resign in January by myself. The EMU Tavern pro posal won’t be finished this year because Feldman’s administra tion of the ASUO has been geared more towards reacting after the fact rather than, working together with the EMU Board. EMU Board and IFC member Janet Eggleston’s comment that “Every single member of that Board is incompetent.” comes as a surprise. Along with myself, Janet helped to fill three vacan cies last term from among qual ified and interested people. If Feldman and Eggleston are sincere in their comment that many staff positions in the EMU should be paid by the University rather than through incidental fees, why have they kept their opinion such a secret? The EMU Board had budget hearings all through February three times a week and the ASUO was invited. No one from Feldman’s office ever attended. Nor did Janet Eggleston ever make her feelings known. But Spring elections are coming up. Perhaps Feldman's best ac complishment is that he’s proved it is one thing to get elected, quite another to do a good job. Getting quoted in the Emerald is no big deal; working productively with others is. Dusty Rhodes EMU Board Chairman Problems coming During this next year the ASUO will be faced with problems that have been ignored and avoided by the University administration. Policies towards funds for student programs, course evaluations, and parking facilities must be changed and updated. First of all, the Incidental Fee Committee needs money. They are currently forced to pursue a policy of financial conservatism; allocating funds to existing prog rams only, and allowing increases in funding to barely match the costs of inflation. We need room for some expansion. There are organizations that deserve funding but are unable to receive it because of the financial limitations of the IFC. There are ways to increase the scope of ASUO programs without raising al ready high incidental fees. For example, existing and fu ture academic programs — such as academic student unions — should not be an IFC burden. Indi vidual departments could make funds available to these groups to make up for the “student costs" of departments’ commitment to re search and not to instruction. Also, there seems to be enough support on the campus for an EMU tavern. This is the kind of practical and profit-making enter prise that has student support, that can be efficiently student operated, and that will allow for more student activities. Students must also have some way of evaluating professors and courses. There should be some way of knowing, before a student enters a classroom, whether the instructor will effectively teach the class or mumble in a boring monotone. As yet, the course evaluations have not been re leased. It costs the University ap proximately $60,000 a year to compile evaluations, and the for mat does not lead to very conclu sive information. Course evalua tions should be released to stu dents. We fill them out; we should also have access to the results. If they remain unreleased, the ASUO should compile its own evaluation, so that by any means this information is available to stu dents. Parking facilities at this Univer sity have long been inadequate and a constant source of agrava tion (tickets). Parking spaces are filled by 8:30 (unless you want to walk 20 minutes to campus). Peo ple living near campus cannot get out of their driveways because the streets are so crowded with stu dents’ cars. And to top it all off, we pay $18 a year for the priviledge of paying at least that much in park ing fines. The University hesitates to budget for more parking, because facilities are already included in the city of Eugene's long-range building plans. But, the need ex ists now. The southernmost part of the rarely-used athletic field on 18th could serve our immediate needs while waiting for a ramp (enlarged parking capacity) be hind PLC. In any event, these and other problems will not be resolved un less the ASUO makes a strong showing in both the State Legisla ture and in bargaining with the University. Mike Lockwood ASUO Presidential Candidate Junior, Economics Stick to Satire Jock Hatfield’s front page article in the April 18 Emerald entitled “Holocaust Hotel” seems to indi cate that he should stick to the brand of satire that he appears to be best suited for and avoid fac tual reporting. Among many fac tual errors in his article, two stand out particularly well. First, the “bomb shelters" he cites are not now, and have never been, intended to be used as pro tection from the direct effects of blast and fire as was inferred. In stead, they are intended solely to be used for protection against nuc lear fallout hazards and certain peacetime emergencies. Second, while the national Community Shelter Plan program has been seriously hampered by fiscal constraints at all levels of government over the last decade, the fact that "in-place” protection of the populace, as well as Crisis Relocation Contingency Plan ning, are the central thrust of the federal Civil Defense program is clear evidence that the govern ment has not given up efforts to ward public protection. I would be ^ery interested to see the 1973 “What the Hell" letter that Hatfield cited. If Jock Hatfield is in fact con cerned about the state of emergency preparedness in this country, he should realize that ar ticles such as his do nothing to alleviate the tremendous apathy in this country toward emergency preparedness programs and only discourage support for a remedy to one of the United States' grass-roots problems — survival of the people of this country during both war and peacetime emergencies. Contrary to Hatfield’s inferences, and popular opinion, there is much that can be done to reduce fatalities from the current projections of 70 percent in the event of the “unthinkable nuclear holocaust” to projections of less than 10 percent. Jt’s Jock Hatfield's “give-up” attitude that makes it next to impossible to es tablish budget priorities at the fed eral and state levels for full spec trum emergency preparedness education for all the citizens of this country. Rick Rouse Graduate Student, RPM Endangered duck With due respect to other in terest groups promoting the salva tion of various animals (whales, seals, etc.), we feel that currently there is an endangered creature much more relevant to the major ity of University students. We need to devote our energies to an issue that touches us all—we can save Donald Duck! A campaign on campus seeks to replace Donald with a recent caricature striking the fancy of a very few persons, namely its creator and associates. Because of their affiliation with the Emerald, we have been under a constant deluge of Mallard Drake propaganda/advertisements, in cluding no less than a full page iron-on transfer. My, my, we are impressed. A major argument proposed by Mallard Drake backers concerns their opposition to Donald Duck for being “a multi-national duck," whereas Mallard Drake is to be preferred because he’s home-drawn, so to speak. The question we wish to raise is this: exactly what’s wrong with being well-known (as in multi national)? Is it not a major purpose of a mascot to be easily recogniz able? What duck is better known nationwide than Donald? Therefore, we come to this: Are there not advantages in having a well-known mascot? Unfortu nately, concerning Mr. Drake, this may not be the case. Careful examination of this bird appears to reveal not so much an original creature as it does a mod ified, longer-beaked Daffy Duck. Do we, a body already viewed as deranged idiots” by certain southern neighbors, wish to prop agate further reason for that tag by replacing Donald with a bird that will be readily identified by non UO students in 50 states as not Mallard, but Daffy? For 21 years officially and numerous others unofficially, Donald Duck has ably and admir ably served this institution as our mascot. There is no reason to re place Donald, especially for the satisfaction of a few, however ad vantageously placed, individuals. Don Loving, Sophomore-Journalism Kurt Williams, Junior-Biology Cute duck, but The duck who goes by the name of Mallard Drake and who is vying for the position of “Univer sity Duck”, is very cute — BUT he is certainly not a mallard A mallard drake has a grey back, white un derside, green head, white neck band, rusty-colored breast, and bright blue speculum — as any duck on the Mill Race will tell you This candidate for University Duck would heighten his credibil ity considerably if he would change his name, or his plumage. Marcy Willow Biology Feathers ruffled I am appalled I have read and enjoyed the Emerald for many a year. The conciseness of its reportage, its excellent use of pictures, its un biased coverage of the major is sues of the day — all have made me proud to be affiliated with the same institution that it is. Why, then, forsake it all on a bird? Your unabashed support for Mallard Drake as University Duck makes a mockery of the journalis tic ideals of unbiased reporting and equal coverage of all view points; ideals which you upheld so well in your articles on the John son Hall protestors, the anti nuclear (excuse me, "nuke”) forces and Measure 51. As co-chairman of the RCYB RCYB — Retain Class in Your Bird committee — I call upon you to drop your drakonian campaign, stop decoying us and give equal space to the pro-Donald people Dump the drake now! ... damn right my feathers are ruffled. Eric Lee Freshman, Journalism co-chairman, Retain Class in You/ Bird (RCYB)
