Letters
Vote ‘no’ on 51
Students fought to gain the right
to vote in the district where they
attend school. On May 23 you will
have the opportunity to exercise
this right in a battle of national im
port.
The issue is whether all citi
zens, regardless of sexual prefer
ence, shall have the basic rights to
housing, jobs and public accomo
dations. By repealing human
rights measures in Miami and St.
Paul the “New Right” has shown
that it can and will take away the
civil rights of gay people. Eugene
is the next site of this struggle. We
must all act to stop the tide here. If
we don’t the issue will not only be
where next, but who next and
what next? Which gains made by
civil rights and feminist advocates
will be up for repeal?
The very least we can do is to
vote. If you are already registered
in Eugene, make sure to vote on
May 23. If you are not, be assured
that all citizens in this county have
the right to register up to and in
cluding election day. Until May 16,
you can register by mail. After that
date you must register at the
County Elections Office (175 W.
8th). In both cases of late registra
tion, you must take your voting
certificate to your polling place.
The Gay People’s Alliance, with
the help of organizations like the
New American Movement, will be
staffing tables during the next few
days in the EMU to help you regis
ter. If you can’t find a table, regis
tration forms are always available
in the GPA office, 318 EMU (take
the elevator).
If you want to do more, call the
GPA (686-3360) or the Eugene
Citizens for Human Rights
(485-1075). But at least vote.
STOP THE TIDE HERE. REGIS
TER AND VOTE NO ON BALLOT
MEASURE #51.
Barbara Corrado Pope
Instructor, Women’s Studies
and Daniel Pope, Assistant
Prof., History
Capital terrorism
You know, I've been hearing an
awful lot about terrorism in differ
ent countries. There’s Marxist
terrorism, Palestinian-terrorism,
Arab-terrorism, Jewish-terrorism,
etc. etc.
But, you know, they never talk
about American-terrorism. We
have it though, and we’ve killed an
awful lot of people with it. It’s cal
led “capital punishment."
Joyce Falshung
Sophomore, Marketing
Warped priorities
It was fascinating to note in
Friday’s Register-Guard that the
University has created a brand
new administrator, namely a “vice
president for public services.”
This strange new creature will
“coordinate university activities"
in such things as fund raising and
alumni relations. For such educa
tionally crucial activities, our new
vice president will hold the rank of
professor and get a salary of
$39,500 per annum.
For months the University has
been insisting it cannot afford to
pay minimum wage to food ser
vice workers and other student
workers, or to pay a living wage to
GTFs, yet somehow they came up
with $39,500 to hire another damn
vice president. How many vice
presidents are there now? With
that money, they could pay every
student worker the minimum
wage and have enough left over to
give a raise to every GTF. Is this
an educational institution or a
home for unemployed bureau
crats? We’ve got to demand
changes in these warped
priorities.
Jeff Edmunson
Graduate,
Psychology
To the point
The Atiyeh-Martin- McCall
gubernatorial debate held Friday,
April 28 in the EMU K.*oved to be
an important lesson in politics for
many citizens in attendance in
cluding myself. The debate de
monstrated that not all candidates
fit the image created by their cam
paigns, and that some candidates
can face tough issues honestly
while others know how to dance
well.
Former Governor McCall
danced with surprising virtuosity
considering his reputation as a
“bold dynamic” politician. McCall
dodged hard core issues like state
legislation on gay rights and nuc
lear power. He seemed to offer a
return to Oregon’s lost Camelot as
his only firm proposal.
Senator Atiyeh was neither in
novative in his thinking or dynamic
in his presentation. His answers
were all the low-keyed soft sell
type, and he often tried to smooth
over the rough issues by talking
around his main point rather than
straight at it.
Only State Representative
Roger Martin confronted the ques
tioning with straightforward ans
wers. The issues the other candi
dates talked around Martin took
on without hesitation. Even if one
did not agree with every single
stand he took or each and every
proposal he made it was dear he
was not hiding his position behind
a screen of empty rhetoric. On
most issues all three seemed to
be in basic agreement, but on the
sensitive questions only Martin
made his stand clear.
Any of the three candidates
would certainly be an improve
ment over our present do-nothing
governor, but from media reports
alone it would be difficult to make
the choice among them. However,
if every Oregonian had the oppor
tunity to see these three state
leaders on the same stage to
gether there is no doubt that
Roger Martin would be our next
governor.
David Price
Graduate student, Business
Bigoted morality?
Brower is right (letter, April 24)
that the Bible is not recognized by
the Constitution as a standard for
determining rights. What assur
ance have we that God, in his
judgement of people and nations,
recognizes the Constitution and
the decisions of the U.S. Supreme
Court or even a Eugene City
Council ordinance? If the people
of Eugene vote that His Biblical
morality is bigoted, will He be im
pressed?
R.R. McCready
Associate prof., library
-opinion ■■■■■
Law vs. justice: Redden’s ruling is legal, but unjust
Submitted by Ozodi Osuji
for the African Student Organization
On Tuesday, May 2, 1978, James Redden, Oregon
Attorney General finally handed down his long awaited
formal opinion: the State Board of Higher Education has
no legal power to order divestment of university stocks in
the 27 U.S. corporations doing business in South Africa,
in which it had invested. His reasoning, as reported by the
Emerald was that “political factors could be only consi
dered in buying and selling state stock if it affected the
return on those investments.” Further, only “the safety of
investments and the probable rate of return could influ
ence the investment managers to sell stock.”
A cursory glance at Redden’s argument will im
mediately convince the reader that his opinion rests solely
on pure economic and legal grounds. The state is in the
business of maximizing profits. Given that goal, the best
policy to adopt is to invest in markets where the probability
of greatest dividends is anticipated. South Africa is one
such market. We give accolades to Redden for his
economic perspicacity. He is a shrewd businessman. In
business, rationality dictates that objective cost-benefit
calculations override subjective, emotional or abstract
speculations as to whether our behavior is moral. (?)
In fairness, we must not blame Redden. Like public
officials everywhere, he exists to carry out policies
enacted by the political superstructure in which he oper
ates. Indeed, several other states and boards of higher
education have done precisely what he did. For instance,
the California "Regents,” University of Washington
"Board of Regents,” Yale University, Princeton and Stan
ford, and so on.
Redden's opinion is strictly legal. We say "legal”
because in all probability he interpreted the law correctly.
Thus, he is not only an astute economist, he is also a
brilliant lawyer.
Now, leaving the quibblings of transient public offi
cials that bloom today and pass into insigificant oblivion
tomorrow aside, (can you remember the Oregon Attorney
General of 1940?), let us address ourselves to the ques
tion of justice. What is legal, what is just? Mr. Redden was
acting legally, but was his action just? Our view is that he
was not. If so, then, the law does not necessarily repres
P.ao A
ent justice. In fact, many atrocities are committed
under the cloak of law. Witness Nixon’s law and order
policy of the late 1960s — a camouflage under which
vigorous attempts were made to stifle black demand for
justice. This makes it crucial for us to be suspicious of
those who mouthe “law” slogans.
We must contantly ask, is law justice as a metaphysi
cal abstraction, which lends itself to various definitions.
Maybe so. Nevertheless, we all suspect that healthy
human beings tend to be able to intuitively conceive what
treat us. Pragmatic responses to the requirements of the
present situation notwithstanding, most people imma
nently agree that we should treat others as we would they
treat us. Although a cynic like Bernard Shaw points out
the built-in contrdiction in the golden rule (for example,
suppose you are driven by a death wish and don’t mind
others’ killing you, can you justifiably kill others!), we are
of the opinion that a sane human being not impelled by
desperation is most likely to expect others to threat him
decently. Hence he treats others decently. “Other
regarding” behavior is the simple phrase.
The Attorney General’s ruling decidedly does not
take the effect of his behavior into consideration — an
economically strong South African government will have
the military wherewithal to supress the African segment of
its population. Or is it the case that the Attorney General
was cognizant of the effects, but motivated by self survival
interests is careless of the well-being of the Africans? We
hesitate to dismiss this behavior as cowardly (we define
courage as the ability to identify with others’ misery and
feelings; and subsequent behavioral responses under
taken to alleviate it. Self-survival becomes concurrent
with others’ survival). Cowardice than is opportunism.
The courageous would rather resign than be part of body
manipulating legal shenanigans to enslave the weak.
Law or what is legal is usually legislation enacted by
those in control of the instrument of coercion. The South
African apartheid regime, for instance, has laws. Some of
these laws stipulate that over 95 percent of the land area
of the “republic” be reserved for whites (see the 1933
Native Land Act), that blacks live in assigned bantutans
(ghettos), that blacks carry pass cards all the time, that
blacks not be seen on the streets of the major cities after
daytime hours, that blacks must not have votes in the
elections to parliament, that black wages must be lower
than whites’ — any whites, irrespective of the level of skill
or education and above all, that blacks not express their
thoughts openly in the press — censored press. All these
are legitimate laws of South Africa.
If we fail to differentiate what is just from what is legal,
it follows that for the peoples of South Africa, black and
white, to be law abiding means acquiescence of the
above laws. Since the rhetoric of the American system is
that a democratic republic is a country ruled by laws, then
the democratic South African Republic is ruled by laws.
Nobody should be above the law, hence the African must
accept the place stipulated for him by the South African
laws.
Most sane people will probably object. They will point
out that some laws are clearly serving the interest of the
most powerful group in certain countries. Under this con
dition, the laws are unjust and should not be obeyed.
We are merely trying to point out the ridiculouness
implied when public officials proclaim the need for laws as
opposed to morality. Redden dearly acceptes the view
that morality has no place in government operation;
otherwise, how could he unabashedly encourage initui
ous trade in human suffering?
Perhaps we are a bunch of naive, uninformed sen
timentalists, unappredative of the reality of human ex
ploitiverness, especially when national self-interests are
at stake. The international arena may be a jungle for the
most powerful to swallow the weak. Yet we dissodate
ourselves from any opportunistic, expedient behaviors
that see man as a means to an end. Man is an end in
himself, and if the Attorneys General of the world are
incapable of realizing that fact, then the laws they repres
ent are not worthy of respect. Only when laws approxi
mate justice can we, in honesty to ourselves, abide by
them.
In the meantime, may “cool” objective, rational
money-grabbers invest in South Africa, make profits from
slave labor. Convince your consdences (if any) that your
actions are legal and economically wise. For us, we see
through these legal antics and must separate the chaff
from the good seed when the time comes. South Africans
must be liberated.