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. „