Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 25, 1978)
Letters Poor defense Re: ASUO vice-president Keli Osborn’s letter defending the “No on 51” ads in the Emerald (Let ters, 5/24). I find the ASUO de fense to be very inadequate. Osborn refers to the referen dum as “horrendous,” yet claims the ads were placed “not of our own personal preference.” It sure is good to be objective about such an issue, expecially when you're using someone else’s money. Osborn states that the ASUO Executive didn’t poll students on the issue because of the lack of “time and money resources.” De spite this financial difficulty, the ASUO somehow managed to pay for four ads opposing measure 51. Imagine the type of campaign the ASUO could have run if they did have enough time and money! Still, Osborn seems to know that the ASUO-funded ads were a careless mistake when she ad mits that “It may have been better to simply state our opinion, rather than using students funds to take a position on a controversial issue before the voters.” I agree. The editorial page of the Emerald is where individual opinions belong — certainly not in ads paid for by the entire student body. Perhaps, then, those responsi ble (irresponsible?) for the ads should at least follow P. Sharkey Bleeg’s demand (Letters, same issue) and reimburse the ASUO fund with their own money. That would at least accomplish something. John Iwasaki Senior, Journalism Uninformative trash This letter concerns the article, “The Academic Apes" which ap peared in the Daily Emerald on Wednesday, May 18. After reading the article, I realized that I had underestimated the journalistic abilities of the re porter, Jock Hatfield. For some one to spend so much time and energy on one assignment (as I know he did), I was truly amazed that he could come up with a two page spread of such incredibly un informative trash. The article is a hallmark of inac curacy. The most blatant mistake was the title, “The Academic Apes.” It is a catchy title, but incor rect; the story concerns monkeys. Hatfield refers to the group as “...short-tailed Asiatic monkeys. They are long-tailed Asiatic mon keys. There are not 12 monkeys but 17. He refers to a particular monkey which had both male and female genitals as a “transves tite;” the proper term is "hermap hrodite,” in this particular case, “hermaphrodite with excess.” My favorite portion of the article, however, was Hatfield's pheno menally insightful one-paragraph summation of primate evolution with the unforgetable “family tree’ grabber, “Man was a twig on one of these branches during the sea son they forgot to prune.” This paragraph (and entire article) made it quite evident that the reporter’s knowledge of the pro cesses of evolution is at most rather scanty. A basic tenet seems to be, “If you don’t have the knowledge go for the laughs.” Hatfield seems to habitually go for the laughs. What bothered me the most about the article, however, was Hatfield’s flippant and almost sar castic treatment of the subject matter. Apparently his intent was to write an entertaining article that would attract the attention of a broad audience. He apparently felt that the public would not (or could not) read an informative ar ticle so instead he turned to writing a “cutesy” article about “cutesy" animals. This style of writing in this context, however, makes a mock ery of the research endeavors of those involved. His discussion of my own research into foot function and structure sounded as if it were describing a fetish. In fact, his overview of the general develop ment of primate research makes past and present investigators sound like rubes who “just fell off the turnip wagon.” I must, in ad dition, say that I found the section of the article concerning the wor ship of the crab-eating macaques as offensive. All the above cirticisms, how ever, are minor, compared to the following. I granted Hatfield an in terview on the condition (which he accepted) that I be allowed to read and approve the article before it went into print. The article went into print, however, without my prior consent. I find this lack of courtesy inex cusable as do my colleagues. If the Emerald continues such a pol icy, it will surely be unable to get interviews from individuals con cerning their research or academic endeavors. It is this type of journalism which con tinues to isolate the general public from the activities of the scientific community. Donald C. Dunbar Ph.D. candidate, GTF Department of Anthropology Human tragedy The fsraeli-Palestinian problem is indeed a human tragedy. There has been much suffering on each side and many injustices have been committed. Out of despair, anger, indignation and, perhaps, fear — as well as a desire to help and protect its people — the Palestinian government has re sorted to, among other things, ter rorism. As a result, both the inno cent and the guilty have suffered. Out of anger, indignation, fear and, perhaps, despair — as well as a desire to help and protect its people — the Israeli government has resorted to, among other things, revenge. Again, both the innocent and the guilty have suffered. The ter rorism and the revenge, though hardly justifiable, are understand able. That is to say, by becoming aware of the circumstances and conditions which led up to the vio lence, we can feel compassion for both sides, and the impulse to blame and condemn can be quel led. If we can but achieve some em pathy with other human beings, if we can emphasize the similarities of our predicaments instead of talking as if there were only differ ences between us, only then will we be able to achieve some tong term solution to the complex polit ical (i.e., human) problems which tear at our lives. For it is only when we dehumanize the “other side" and see it as a face-less, homogeneous mass, that we can wish for the elimination of it, as though it were a cancer. When we brood over the injus tices of the past, we are no longer learning from history, but cultivat ing hatred. In place of the worth less and self-destructive acts of revenge and terrorism, in place of inflammatory rhetoric, let there be a return to sanity. If we have san ity, justice will take care of itself. Richard Zucher Graduate, Philosophy/Classics 1 — ...opinion . . Sociology department: a 6marketplace of ideas?’ Submitted by Albert Szymanski Associate prof., Sociology I was quite surprised to read the remarks of Richard Gale in the May 19th story about the sociology depart ment and feel it necessary to support our graduate student's editorial and ad which appeared in the May 18th Emerald. (1) At no point in the protracted discussions in our department did those that insisted on not hiring anyone they suspected might be a “Marxist” argue that David Milton should not be hired because “we have too many people teaching stratification already.” It was made ex plicit from the beginning that the conservative faaity were only interested in ‘ not hiring any more “Marxists’ ". To quote from the official department minutes of April 11 edited by one of the leaders of the faculty faction opposed to Milton’s hiring: "It became clear that one segment of the department was willing to hire one or more additional Marxists whereas the other segment was not." (2) Milton was proposed for a regular position on the basis that (1) his areas met the criteria laid out in advance by the department; and (2) in addition he fit the “excep tional" category established as a result of the request of one of the faculty opposed to Milton. (3) The conservative faculty have defined “Marxist” variously as “anyone who votes with students in de partmental meetings" and “anyone who thinks social con flict is the essence of society." Such sweeping definitions (which are applied to current department members as well as prospective new faculty) are reminiscent of the 1950s definitions of “red” and "pinko”. Anyone suspected of Marxist” leanings (by these definitions) was blackbal led by these faculty including outstanding statisticians (a prime area for our search) and a well known Chinese American from Berkeley. (4) Some of the conservative faculty opposed to hiring people they suspected of “Marxist" leanings con fided to me personally as well as to the candidates themselves that they felt Milton (and the others) were fully qualified for the job, but that they would be voting against them purely on the basis of their politics. One rationale offered by a number of the conservatives was that “Marx ists are generally discriminated against at other univer sities and that therefore those that apply to the University are often more qualified than others. Thus in order not to be inundated with “Marxists” it is necessary for us to discriminate against them as well.” (5) Half the faculty and all of the graduate student representatives to the department meetings were willing to allow the conservative block to hire two people they wanted if in exchange they would agree to the hiring of any one candidate supported by the other half of the faculty and the graduate students. However, the conser vative faction arrogantly refused to even discuss such a compromise, preferring instead to take the issue outside of the department so that they might be allowed to fill all three open positions with candidates of their choosing. (6) David Milton who has tentatively received a two year visiting professorship is considerably more qualified than at least one of those the administration has approved for a regular professorship. While Milton has published two books and has an established national reputation as an expert on China, one of those appointed to a regular position has only three co-authored articles, all in obscure journals. (7) This same person was offered a full time regular position even though she had only nine votes in her favor (with 13 against her hiring). In comparison Milton had 13 in his favor (with nine against). In addition, three faculty (beyond the 13 who voted) strongly favored a regular appointment for Milton (the chairman, a professor on leave and a visiting professor not allowed to vote.) (8) One of the members of the conservative block stated that he would not have been so opposed to Milton had he not had an established national reputation. The protracted efforts of the conservative block to prevent hiring highly qualified people with whom they suspect they might have political disagreements in favor of less qualified but political sympathetic people is resulting in a mediocre department, a price the conservatives are ap parently willing to pay in order to eliminate student par ticipation in departmental decision making and destroy our department s national reputation as one of the most creative and pluralistic in the nation. (9) After hearing of the administration’s offer of a two year visiting position for Milton, one of the leaders of the conservative faction stated “We have lost a battle, but we will win the war” in apparent referrence to Milton’s possi ble renewal, other hiring decisions, up and coming tenure and reappointment cases, and student involvement in departmental decision making. The conservative block has let it be known that those they suspect of being “Marxists” can expect to have a lot of trouble in the future. (10) The conservative block complains about the rest of the faculty neither publishing enough nor bringing in enough grant money. Vet both the most prolific writers and the best grant getters are among those they categorize as “Marxists”, while some of their own have never published anything and others have published no thing for years. (11) The handling of this case (and those of the other highly qualified blacklisted candidates) seems to belie the notion that the university is a “free market place of ideas” where all ideas might contend on equal terms; and in stead, support the Marxist idea that universities are con trolled by business interests and run to produce the know ledge, skills and ideology necessary to make the Ameri can corporate system work profitably and without hassle.
