Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 22, 1978)
---Editorial endorsements Weaver best choice for 4th District Congress Three Republicans and two Demo crats are trying to unseat the incumbent Jim Weaver this election, but it appears that none of them is more likely to do a better job than the sometimes hapless Weaver. All of the candidates have criticized Weaver for his rhetoric, (which Repub lican Lausmann calls “Weaverbab ble”) and for his somewhat flamboyant political style. Weaver has tried er nestly to mold himself in the Wayne Morse image, the maverick pol who re fused to buckle to pressure. But he is nowhere near the statesman Morse was, and he probably never will be. But this year, the other Democrats are not strong enough to bring Weaver down, and the Republicans are best typified as right-wing in the extreme, running for election perhaps more to defeat Weaver and his views on timber than for any other reason. And Weaver does have some good stands on timber issues. He is strongly in favor of reforestation, sustained yield programs and limiting the export of togs to foreign nations, a move that would alleviate the unemployment of the reg ion. Weaver has good stands on the issues, but we often wonder whether he is more concerned about making headlines in Oregon than passing legislation in Washington. We don’t think he’s as effective as he could be. But a look at his opponents will show easily that Weaver is the man for the job this year. Bob Wood, another Democrat, is now a Lane County Commissioner. He is experienced in government, but not enough to qualify him for Congress. He has been running a campaign of extreme generalities, proposing no new ideas for important issues. Jonathon Bates, the third Democrat in the race, regards timber and unemp loyment as his major issues for the campaign. He points out that southwest Oregon has a very high rate of unemp loyment, but we don’t think his ap proach to timber problems will solve that problem in the long run. He doesn’t favor expansions of wilderness areas; we think the way to solve the decreas ing timber harvest is to place stronger controls on the use of forest land and reforestation, not by tearing into he heart of some of the most wild land in the nation. We would prefer to see Bates more opposed to nuclear power than he is Overall, he is less knowledgeable than Weaver on energy issues, apd energy will be one of the most important issues for Oregon congressmen to know about in the very near future. The three Republican offerings for nomination represent one of the poorest field of candidates. Jerry Lausmann, the leading candidate, is a veneer and plywood manufacturer, one who has beliefs about timber use and energy with which we find little ag reement. He favors building more road into rest areas to get more timber out (of the forests, and he is not as strong on sustained yield programs as we would like to see. Generally, he represents an industry viewpoint on the use of forests. No doubt the wood products industries would love to see Lausmann elected. Michael Fitzgerald, a county com missioner from Curry County, favors nuclear energy, opposes wilderness areas and has limited knowledge on many issues which will be of crucial concern in the future. William Anderson is one of the many expected “free-enterprise” candi dates who crop up during election time. He favors abolishing federal regulatory agencies, an idea we find simply in credible. We hope that Weaver, in his next term in Congress, works more on get ting legislation passed. Sometimes politicians must work in non-headline grabbing ways to be influential; that’s a lesson Weaver might be wise to heed. He is very good and knowledgeable on the issues, but making his stand count will be more important in the next two years. Letters — -Letters ■ - Letters When you go to the polls on Tuesday, May 23, remember to vote for a candidate for Gty Council of Eugene. If you live in Ward 4, which includes the University dorms and most of Eugene east and northeast of the University, you will be able to vote for Gretchen Miller. Gretchen graduated from the University Law School and pres ently practices law in an office at 19th and Agate. Proximity to the University enables Gretchen to keep abreast of issues important to the University community. Gretchen has been active for sev eral years in the Laurel Hill Neigh borhood Association, working on their Neighborhood Refinement Plan. She believes improving Eugene’s airshed, preserving prime agricultural land, supporting alternative transportation modes, and in responsibility planning for Eugene’s future growth. Gretchen is able to work comfortably with people of differing viewpoints. She listens openly and considers all viewpoints before reaching a decision. The Eugene City Council makes decisions on most issues which affect the people who live here, e.g., land use planning, growth management, transporta tion planning, human rights, fluoridation. Your support of Gretchen Miller will help insure that the City Council is composed of people who will make informed, responsible decisions, and who will work to devise innovative solu tions to Eugene’s problems. Judi Horstmann Biology Research Associate No response As one of the 20 or so people who voted “no response” in the last ASUO presidential election, I’d like to say something about the recent election hassle over count ing "no response” votes. I voted "no response’’ because the can didate I supported didn’t make it into the runoff. I didn’t think that the two candidates that did make it would do a very good job. I voted because I guess I’m one of the few people on campus who still gives a damn about ASUO elections. But because I didn’t support either candidate, I voted “no response” — a vote for no candidate. I was hoping that "no response” would win. I took he time to voted, I marked a ballot with the intention of cast ing a vote, and I think my vote should have been counted. Jay Larson Senior, Biology No on Measure 51 Discrimination, not homosexu ality, is the issue that we shall vote on next Tuesday. Councilmen Delay and Lieuallen made that perfectly clear in their news con ference (Register-Guard 5/15). The advertisement placed by VOICE in the same issue of the Register-Guard makes it indelibly clear that VOICE wants discrimi nation. Their ad lists the “Right to work while granting an employ er the right of employee selection’ and the “Right to a home while granting a landlord the right to tenant selection.” What can “right to work” or “right to a home” mean if the em ployer or landlord chooses not to employ or rent to law-abiding, tax-paying citizens because they happen to be Black, Jewish, women or gay? What VOICE apparently wants is to restore total discrimination. There is no constitutional protec tion against this kind of discrimina tion by private parties. People are protected ONLY be state laws or local ordinances. Vote NO on 51. Perry Powers, Professor Romance Languages Think again Did you think teaching and scholarship were the issues in hir ing new faculty at this university? Did you think the Sociology De partment a fairly democratic one, serious about its commitment to student participation in gover nance? Think again. It has become crystal clear in our department that being a Marx ist means not being hired (regard less of superior credentials), that democratic procedures are ir relevant when student votes are influential, and that ultimately student rights and interests are expendable. Both academic free dom and student participation in academia were hard-won rights, and it is again evident that both must be constantly defended. This is no longer simply an internal dispute, for these issues trans cend the peculiarities of the Sociology Department. Students and faculty who imagine scholar ship and ability to be the criteria for academic positions should know what is happening in this and other departments at the Univer sity. And those who would make hiring decisions on the basis of poli tics should be forced to make their case in a public context. Undergraduates and majors, please try to make it to the meet ing next Wednesday (714 PLC, at 4:30). Your input is needed and your interests are at stake. Elaine Enarson Graduate Student, Sociology Second time around The question as to the rules which govern the use of athletic facilities is with us once aqain. Al though the scene has shifted from the Alder St. Tennis Courts, via Eslinger Hall, to MacArthur Court the problem remains the same: what are the rules, where are they posted, and when do varsity teams have priority over Univer sity students? The reason that I am writing on this subject for a second time is because a student asked a group of varsity basketball players this question on Monday afternoon at Mac Court. The answers he re ceived were varied and colorful to include this sarcastic remark aimed in his direction as he left the court: "Write an editorial, eveyone else does!” Since I qualify as an “everyone," I was flattered that a player had taken the time to read my letter; unfortunately reading and comprehending what one reads are two different ballgames. For this reason I would like to reiterate two points I made in my original letter in hopes that, the second time around, something will sink in: 1) that the P.E. Department/Athletic Department post the rules which govern the use of all facilities at those facilities and 2) that those players who are a ‘‘bit arrogant re evaluate their attitude, and those who are not, exercise a little lead ership to show us you are worthy of our support off the court as well as on it. Mac MacGibbon Graduate, International Studies It’s not rights I invite you to join me in thinking about rights. This seems to be a very popular topic in Eugene. Popular and yet confusing. I am a human being. I have human rights. If I don’t realize this, I can rely upon the United Nations to define and inform me of my rights. Homosexuals are human be ings. They also have human rights. Likewise, they may rely upon the United Nations to inform them of their rights. I am an United States citizen. I have Contitutional rights. I may refer to the Bill of Rights and other equivalent documents to inform me of my, “certain unalienable rights.” Homosexuals may also be Un ited States citizens. Therefore, they also are covered in the Bill of Rights. As a citizen, I am guaranteed certain rights. These include the rights of; voting, owning property, obtaining an education, fair trial by jury, equal pay for equal work, and protection from discrimination be cause of race, color, national origin, religion or sex. Homosexuals, if citizens, may also claim these civil rights. In simple terms, I am equal jury, equal pay for equal work, and protection from discrimination be cause of race, color, national origin, religion or sex. This alone is the issue before us. D.K. Huneke in a May 16 Letter in a rabid polemic classified all op ponents of Measure 51 as “religi ous bigots.” Furthermore he infer red that the Bible condones homosexuality. I refer him to Ro mans 124-28. In these passages homosexuality is described as lusty, unnatural and shameless. Homsexuality is wickesness, and wickedness is condemned in the Bible. Christians condemn homosexuality according to scrip ture. There is no need to condemn homosexuals, Jesus will change their lives, or God will judge them for their wickedness. Not bigotry but scriptural truth. It is a moral issue. To call it any thing else would be to distort the truth. Vote YES on Measure 51. It’s not rights. It’s morals. Brian Schuldt Senior, Theatre PLC spectre There is a spectre haunting the 7th floor in Prince Luicien Campbell these days. This spectre is democracy. The pow ers to be in the sociology depart ment have found it to their advan tage to throw democracy out of the windows of 7th floor in order to ensure that the department re turns to the days when students had n o power to determine the course of their lives. Under graduates beware of the ephem eral appeal of some professors who claim that the Marxists, radi cals, feminists and other “sub versive” elements desire total control of the department. Last week's events, when closely analyzed, will show that democracy was not performed. The feudal landlords returned power to the king and the peas ants have been disenfranchized. The feudal landlords now gloat, not knowing that the history of jus tice lies not in total domina tion, but in compromise. Graduate students ask for democracy, not domination. Harry Humphries Graduate Student, Sociology 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. Letters and opin ions will be run on a first-come first-served basis.
