Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 1, 1978)
opinion Censorship pulls its boots on again University administrators have in vited public comment on a proposed policy—already “temporarily” in effect—that requires prior written ap proval for display of signs and banners in or on campus buildings and “other institutional facilities.” Our comment on this policy: Chuck it. No difficult mental gymnastics are needed to see that this policy could, for example, stymie organizations with displays in the EMU as readily as it might restrain drunken poster wielders in Mac Court. We are particularly irritated by the appearance in the University environ ment of this ancient impulse to censor. The campus, purportedly, repre sents a bastion for the free exchange of diverse ideas and modes of expres sion. As written, this policy has con vinced us that it lacks practical benefit, moral or intellectual justification or legal support. Officials who approved the new pol icy, designed in the office of University Vice President Rav Hawk, arque the policy is needed for safety reasons. The problem of large signs blocking spectators' views at athletic events or the vision of contending demonstrators turning stick-attached banners on each other apparently motivated this broad mandate for “control.” Lord forbid that a paying customer might be discomfitted by a “Go Ducks!" placard or that disparate Iranis might turn their printed slogans against each other instead of the Shah! The potential, however, for using this sweeping, yet ambiguous policy to cir cumscribe unpopular notions appears obvious. No guidelines for what represents an inappropriate sign—and, therefore, no limits on the “responsible individual” who must approve each sign—are con tained in the policy. In effect, the new policy represents a lazy man’s path to bureaucratic equanimity by use of overkill. This path, however, could easily lead to the courtroom door, where tribunals at several levels have demonstrated their disaffection with similar measures that impeded free expression on public property. Such proposals as the University’s are, after all, tampering with civil rights that begin in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and end up in every citizen’s speech or writing. General remedies supposedly di rected at specific ills have consistently been rejected by state and federal courts. That’s what Oliver Wendell Holmes was addressing in 1919 with his “clear and present danger” test in Schenck v. U.S. And the idea of “prior restraint,” which would be exercised by the University’s policy, appears, in a much more modest sense, to be the object of disapprobation by Supreme Court Jus tices Hugo Black and William Douglas during the 1971 Pentagon Papers case. At that time they wrote, "Open debate and discussion are vital to our national health." The University administration has a legitimate concern in preventing injury or unjustifiable inconvenience to stu dents and visitors on campus. That concern, however, should be addres sed to specific problems that can be identified, halted and punished as they arise. We suspect that adequate mechanisms already exist in the University’s voluminous registry of rules and regulations to curb and re dress most such problems. If those mechanisms are insufficient, the ad ministration should draw up a narrower policy devoid of the elements of prior restraint and free-expression restric tions entombed in its latest effort. Once more: elephant guns for elephants: fly swatters for mosquitos. Canal plan looks worthy No one’s promising a Parisian quay along the banks of the Seine, but Eugene could gain a novel, multi-benefit waterway system as a result of an ingenious proposal emanating from the University De partment of Landscape Architec ture. “It’s just a matter of vision and commitment,” according to De partment head Jerry Diethelm, who has interested both students and governmental agencies in his idea. •The department’s proposal would link Amazon Creek with the now stagnent Millrace, a turbid portion of which runs through campus, by means of canals. Improved flow and expanded load capacity from this linkage could provide improved water management and flood con trol for the Eugene area as well as establish the basis for an attractive residential, commercial, parks and recreation system. The U.S. Army Corps of En gineers will soon begin a $60,000 feasibility study of the canal-system proposal and Diethelm and his stu dents have applied for a federal grant to continue their design ef forts. If technically and financially pos sible, the waterway system sug gests an exciting array of urban improvement schemes. In addition to the potential for combining a ulititarian concept with an imaginative aesthetic, however, the project gives students an oppor tunity for practical experience. That’s a rare boon for us sweating out the unreality of the University’s “hot-house” environment, seeing our carefully nurtured, but untested theories wither in the harsh ele ments of the outside world. The Emerald applauds Diethelm and the landscape architecture stu dents, endorses the urban waterway concept and urges its support by the University commun ity, other citizens and appropriate governmental groups. We’ve seen the dream’s begin ning in “vision” and hope for its realization through "commitment.” ■* \ * m ‘mw manias; Wu.Give us mi a 3ad name/' tom thompson Unknowns, cost factors fill China oil picture Chinese officials are quick to point out these days their determination to meet the turn-of-the-century goal of China becoming a modem industrial country by the year 2000. They emphasize that China was able to offer its first con signment of petroleum abroad when the world oil crisis of Oct. 1973 was beginning to hit in the West. Within a decade China had reduced its dependence on Soviet oil from one-third of the country’s requirements in 1960 to zero in 1970, and in 1973 was able to export to Japan a million tons of crude. This is an impressive accom plishment. Yet, since China has provided no reliable base num bers with which the country’s percentage increases in pet roleum production have evolved, much of the speculation on the size of China’s reserves may be more wishful think ing than fact. The CIA estimated last year that China has 40 billion barrels onshore and a equal amount offshore. Other specialists put the figure at 45 billion each, which would give China about three times the reserves of the U.S. Much of the oil seems relatively inaccessible and will be expen sive to recover. What is known is that China does have a number of producing basins—spread mainly east-west across the breadth of the country—some of which have never been explored using current technology. Several additional dis coveries of unknown size have been reported in recent years. China s oil production, which rose six-fold between 1966 and 1976, is now estimated at 1.8 to 1.9 million barrels a day for last year. These figures make China the world’s tenth largest producer, comparable to Indonesia. On balance my own estimate i s that China can be expected to produce 2.4 - 2.8 million barrels per day by 1981. Until recently many analysts have not realized that much of this oil will be needed for domestic consumption in China. China’s reserves may be large, but by the standards of industrialized countries, China’s consumption is ex tremely low and, in per capita terms, seems likely to remain so for some time. In addition to industry's increasing de mands, China’s mechanizing agriculture is requiring grea ter amounts of petroleum-based fertilizer. Given these estimates, within a decade or so the ex panding domestic demand will absorb total capacity unless deposits in Western China or offshore are proved and exploited much more rapidly than expected. This is the background to U.S. Energy Secretary James Schlesinger's enthusiastic welcome in China last month. Schlessinger held working level talkson U.S.-China cooperation in China's offshore oil exploration, as well as sales of U.S. equipment and technology. China is especially interested in foreign participation in extractive industries—offshore oil and mining, for example. The Chinese have favored Japan as a partner in offshore oil drilling ventures. But Japanese oil industry sources say frankly that in deep water drilling American technology is superior and probably will be necessary. Pennzoil. Exxon, Union Oil, Phillips Petroleum, and Mobil have held inten sive talks with the Chinese in recent months. The possible joint ventures to follow could produce agreements involving $50 billion in construction and pro duction. Yet it is by no means clear how China expects to pay for these and other massive projects it is negotiating Vice Premier Li Hsien-nien recently indicated that foreign technology imports will cost $600 billion between now and 1985 or $75 billion a year—equivalent to about one-quarter of China's gross national product. „
