Letters
Vote ‘yes’ on No. 6
As a former board member of
the Lane Humane Society (now
the Greenhill Animal Shelter) I re
peatedly urged the board to elimi
nate the use of the decompres
sion chamber and switch to he
more humane method of injection
of sodium pentabarbital to destroy
unwanted animals. It was dis
couraging to me that many of my
fellow board members were not
concerned about this issue.
Ballot Measure No. 6 will re
quire what the Lane Humane So
ciety Board would not direct — the
humane killing of animals. People
will vote “Yes” for Ballot Measure
No. 6 because they care about how
animals die.
Connie Thomas
37483 Riverside Dr.
Pleasant Hill, Or.
Statement sharpened
I find it necessary to write this
because my remarks at the Li
brary Symposium have been un
derstood as support for the cur
rent efforts to automate the
library’s card catalog, etc. Such
was not my intention; therefore I
write this to sharpen my state
ment.
It is becoming possible (and as
publication increases, I believe it
also becomes necessary) to or
ganize descriptions of mono
graphs and even individual papers
in journals into a database for lit
erature search. We will then be
able to perform part of our search
for library material through in
teractive reference to the
database. This should enable
much more effective and thorough
canvass of possible sources. We
will have better starting points for
browsing or source-hopping and
also reduce our reliance on
these activities. The costs of this
kind of tool are decreasing
dramatically every year, and the
systems that would support good
literature search are becoming
feasible.
The systems I forsee are not yet
here; nationally they exist for very
limited fields. Our collective con
cern expressed in the library sym
posium is evidence that a
machine-readable catalog, like a
card catalog or a published bib
liography, is a very blunt instru
ment for library search. Let us use
the next few years working toward
systems that will realize some of
the tremendous improvements
possible in our methods and tools
for search for relevant or useful
information.
To ignore the possibilities is
stupid. To adopt a storage mode
that decreases our opportunities
for finding scholarly material
would be even more stupid. There
is our challenge.
George Struble
Computer Science Dept.
For human rights
On May 23 the citizens of
Eugene will face an issue of fun
damental importance when the re
ferendum on Human Rights
comes to a vote. It is unfortunate
that the welfare of a minority must
be decided by the will of the major
ity, but that is the way in which this
matter comes before us, and we
must therefore choose wisely and
with compassion.
It should be remembered that
homosexuality is not against the
law in Oregon. We are a nation of
laws and must remain so if we are
to survive. If laws are broken, I am
a
confident that the Eugene police
and court system will act appro
priately, regardless of the sexual
orientation of the individual in
volved. We are voting on protec
tion for law-abiding citizens,
and the Human Rights amend
ment applies to both homosexuals
and heterosexuals, in other
words, to all of us.
Although there are many lesser
issues which have been men
tioned in the letters-to-the-editor
column here and in the Eugene
Register-Guard, the real issue is
ensuring basic human dignity for
all our citizens; Freedom from ar
bitrary eviction and from loss of
employment are essential to this
dignity. Few of us are so strong
and self-sufficient that we do not
need the tolerance and compas
sion of others. All of us belong to
one minority or another; it is all the
“theys" that make up the ‘‘us.'' We
do a double evil when we single
out groups or individuals for arbi
trary exclusion from full citizen
ship, both to them and to our
selves. Let us reject fear and pre
judice in favor of compassion and
tolerance. Vote No on repealing
the Human Rights ordinance. Let
us stand firm against those who
would drive us apart. Let us be a
community.
Daniel P. Kimble
Professor of Psychology
IFC disruptive
Kent Mortimore's statement
that the IFC hearing to determine
allocation for Forensics, 1978-79,
“resembled a circus” (Letters,
April 24), certainly is a proper one
from his personal perspective, but
as the one who both wrote and
proposed the budget, requires a
certain amount of delineation. Not
all members of the IFC engaged in
the exercise in democracy-by
frustration which was at the center
of the hearing of April 13. In fact,
the majority of members listened
dosely to the arguments on both
sides, and voted their honest opin
ion. Even Dave Tyler, who sup
ported a cut in the existing budget
by the maximum 10 percent al
lowed, did the same.
Rather, it was the deliberate ac
tions of the remaining three mem
bers which turned what should
have been a routine hearing into a
two-hour ordeal. Procedural prob
lems were carefully outlined in
Mortimore’s letter, and shall not
be dealt with here, but came as no
surprise.
In early January, before
budgets were officially submitted,
and while specific line items were
still being formed, I was assured
by Janet Eggleston that Forensics
would be cut, and further, that she
had arranged the votes to accom
plish that task. That sentiment
was echoed by Jeff Warren on
January 13, a date on which I
doubt that either had read the
specific written proposal. It ap
peared to me then, as it does now,
that something more than a goal
based budgeting procedure was
about to take place.
In the hearing itself, therefore,
even such frivolous acts as Ted
Walker’s motion that $448.71 be
allocated for payroll assessment,
a budget item which required less
than a tenth of that sum. came as
no great shock. What did concern
me was that a reasonable budget
hearing should contain so many
cases of abuse of the process.
Two come readily to mind:
1) Jeff Warren's proposal for
$5,000 reflected, in his own
words, an “arbitrary” amount.
After carefully working out a figure
of $7,071.25 for the same purpose
(recommended by ASUO), a
$5,000 figure, backed with no
reasons for the cut, struck me as
both mindless and irresponsible.
2) On at least two occasions
during the meeting, Janet Eggles
ton felt compelled to announce
either the votes of Warren or
Walker, before either had expres
sed an opinion, raised a hand, or
indicated a perference in any fash
ion. In both cases, those votes
were recorded as if those involved
had actually made them. In any
case, the fact that such things took
place runs counter to any estab
lished form of parlimentary proce
dure.
In short, Mortimore’s contention
that he was “appalled at the be
havior of several committee
members” rings true, but not
necessarily for the reasons he
gave. Most committee members
conducted themselves in an ac
ceptablefashion. It was those who
acted in a vague and disruptive
manner that gave Forensics
treatment which was less than de-*
served, and their behavior was
certainly far less than should be
expected by those who hold or
aspire to high positions in student
government.
Dale Buckley
Director of Forensics
Boycott worthless
Last spring I wrote the Emerald
a letter in which I urged students to
vote against a boycott of southern
African countries. I argued that in
ternational economic boycotts are
counterproductive, hypocritical,
and inimical to our own interests.
The editor told me he wouldn’t
print that letter, and he didn’t.
Please permit me now to make
those same points in reference to
Senator Mark Hatfield’s proposal
to boycott Ugandan coffee.
First of all, an economic boycott
of Uganda would be counter
productive. The tactic has been
tried hundreds of times in the past,
and the results were always the
same: the hard-line elements get
the upper hand. In an oligarchy,
there is a complete eclipse of the
most moderate people, the ones
whose influence derivesfrom bus
iness, government, and cultural
contacts abroad. In a dictatorship
like Uganda, the paranoic and
egoistic elements of the tyrant’s
personality come to the fore. Why
provoke Idi Amin, when he seems
to be experiencing a period of rela
tive self-restraint?
An international boycott can be
effective only if 1) it is sudden and
unexpected, 2) if trade or aid had
previously been on a very high
level, and 3) if the boycott is ex
erted at a crucial moment. A
hypothetical example might be if
the Soviet Union had refused the
Egyptian Army spare parts when it
was surrounded by the Israelis. In
stead, the Soviet Union waited until
Egypt’s crucial moment had pas
sed and so its later refusal to sell
Egypt spare parts must rank as
one of the most counterproductive
boycotts in history — the Rus
sians were expelled from the
country. A boycott against
Uganda now would not meet even
one of the above three criteria.
Secondly, internationl boy
cotts are hypocritical. We
boycott some and excuse the
many others who are just as bad. I
suppose that Hatfield's proposal
is a response to the movement to
boycott South Africa and
Rhodesia. To be sure, this is a
more creative response than the
resignated acquiescence of so
many academic and community
leaders to this leftist moral tunnel
vision, but this hardly makes it a
consistent policy.
This tactic is also hypocritical in
another, less obvious way. The
proposed boycott will exert neglig
ible pressure on Amin, because
he is only interested in personal
power and he already gets all the
tools he needs to maintain that
power from Libya and the com
munist bloc. Rather, the boycott
will further improvish Uganda's
unarmed populace and thus pres
sure them to rise up in desperate
revolt. The hypocricy is the sup
position that we Americans would
have revolted long ago if we were
Ugandans. (In the case of South
Africa and Rhodesia, the Ameri
can left would like to provoke a
premature uprising there while
only the extremists are armed.)
Thirdly, economic boycotts are
inimical to our own interests. In
ternational trade keeps our
economy strong, and maximum
personal contacts keep us well in
formed and sharpen our moral
focus. We are not to blame for the
evil in the world because we con
sume foreign oil, coffee, and cav
iar or because we sell them our
gadgets. This truth is bitter to
those who would like to make the
world perfect easily.
Mike Sylwester
4830 Center Way
Eugene 97405
Editor's note: Greg Wasson,
Emerald editor for last year, in
forms us that Sylwester’s letter
wasn't run because he, Wasson,
decided its satirical content may
have been offensive to some
people.
Letters Policy
The Emerald will accept and try
to print all letters and opinion col
umns containing fair comment on
ideas and topics of concern or
interest to the University commun
ity. Letters and opinions must be
typewritten, using 65-character
margins, and should be triple
spaced. Letters and opinions
must be signed, with the author's
year and field of study (or faculty
status) noted.
-opinion-v
Why the strike
Submitted by Scott Higgins
President, University Student Employees Union
Senior, Economics and Geography
The student labor force at the EMU food service has called a
strike today to show the University that we will not accept slave
wages nor stand for the withdrawal of our seniority rights.
The University has stated that it will not pay us the current
minimum wage. Although they are legally exempt from paying the
minimum wage, there is no reason why EMU workers should be
forced to accept less than the going wage in the rest of the
community.
One reason the University can get away with not paying a
decent wage is the nature of the labor force. Over half of the labor
force in the EMU food service are foreign students. They are
limited to work only on campus without getting a U S. work permit,
which is hard and complicated to obtain. Most other jobs on
campus are limited to work-study students and are only granted
to U.S. citizens. The University is exploiting the foreign students
who are trapped into work at the EMU by not paying a decent
wage.
The University also wants to take away our existing
seniority rights by exempting positions in both the EMU and
dormitory food services in which people would be assigned by the
management with no regard as to a person’s seniority. These
exemptions would open the door once again to favoritism and
legalize discrimination. Past experience has shown that when the
management, especially in the housing department, has
scheduled without the seniority system, it is not the most qual
ified, but the most favored employees who get their desired shifts.
We will not settle for wholesale favoritism.
We are asking everyone to honor our picket lines today and
boycott the EMU food services and beer garden today. We will not
give up our rights to a decent wage and fair working conditions.