A dozen years ago, campus life was
marked by rallies, marches and demon
strations intended to force a reevaluation
of America s values and morals. Often
the protests were aimed at a government
3,000 miles away and the statements
were loud.
But the Washington establishment
wasn’t the only target. Molten lead filled
the locks of Johnson Hail as students
demanded a place on the committee
searching for a new University president.
As tuition levels continued to rise,
students were less content to sit passive
ly by while the University and the State
Board decided how much the students
would pay and what subjects they would
be taught.
About 10 years later, students were
speaking much more softly. The
movement had been inherited by leaders
capable of stating student ’’requests” in
the usual forums. The feeling that
spawned unorganized, and often gratui
tous, violence found expression in the
concept of "student as consumer "
On the campus level, the appeal re
sulted in the mostly symbolic co-gover
nance structure. While paying lip service
to the idea of student imput, Johnson
Hall has systematically denied students a
real voice in running the institution.
Consider the University’s General As
sembly:
That body must approve most impor
tant changes in University affairs and
students have 18 seats compared to the
125 faculty representatives that usually
attend the meetings. (If all faculty
members were to attend, they would
have over 900 votes.)
Against that backdrop, any discussion
of the validity of filling out faculty
evaluations must reach the same con
clusion: The exercise is worthless. Aside
from the fact that completing the forms
kills 10 mintutes of class, there’s little to
justify the waste of paper and lead.
A strong argument can be made that
the only way to lend legitimacy to the
evaluations is to allow their release to the
student public. One of the hallmarks of
the consumer movement is the realiza
tion that buyers need accurate informa
tion to make reasoned choices. Denying
students the chance to view their peers’
opinions of professors negates any ad
ministrative claim that student
contributions to University governance
are important.
But the University hasn’t been the only
institution to mute the student voice.
When their attempts to gain access to the
evaluations were thwarted on campus,
students took their fight to the State
Board. When told it would take legisla
tion to force action, the students went to
the Legislature. But the lawmakers were
no more responsive to students’ pleas;
thus, professors’ grades are still locked
up in Oregon Hall.
The situation conjures up the words of
ex-ASUO type Mark Cogen.
“We recognize we re not going to be
running the place,” said Cogan in a 1977
interview. "Students just want a role that
is consistent with their needs and inter
ests. As consumers, we have a right to
information, a right to make choices, and
that’s all we’re trying to establish.”
Wasson, a first-year law student, edit
ed the Emerald in 1976-77 and has
worked as a reporter in the last three
sessions of the Legislature.
voi jrs
Archie’s pride
After over two weeks of view
ing chastizing remarks from out
raged readers of the Immorald,
I find it difficult to understand
how every one of these letter
writers "missed the boat” on the
Immorald’s satirical intention.
This April Fool’s Day issue was
indeed a farce — a satirical
farce, however.
The Immorald, like Archie
Bunker, was not sexist or racist,
but a satire on the countless
subtleties of sexism and racism
existing in our society today.
Too often the subtle prejudices
go unnoticed until the powerful
effects of bias are ingrained —
first in our attitudes and
behaviors, then in our teachings
of these warped attitudes to our
children, and their children,
then their children’s children.
Archie Bunker, as did the Im
morald, opened our eyes to
these prejudices. As an exam
pie, the now infamous “rape”
ad found in the Immorald was
obviously a comment on the real
advertisement found in the
Emerald a few weeks previous
ly, in which dorm residents - as a
supposed “joke” — solicited an
invitation to impregnate women
as a means of avoiding the draft.
This original advertisement was
sexist; the Immorald’s version
was a satire on this sexism. The
difference between the two is
quite important.
Satire serves an important
function in our culture. It allows
us to see ourselves in a different
perspective and has us question
ourselves. Perhaps not all of the
Immorald’s satirical comments
were “justified,” but they did
open the reader s eyes and
made them pause to think. Ar
chie — you would’ve been
proud!
Daniel Mitchell
senior, psychology
Relevant goals
Women’s Referral and Re
source Service would like to
officially announce our endor
sement for Alan Contreras for
ASUO president.
Alan’s experience with
government, from the state
Democratic Party to the IFC, is
extremely important to an ef
fective executive administra
tion. Alan knows the procedures
necessary for any action and is
conscientiously responsible in
following them. Knowing them
so well, he has often offered
suggestions on alternative
methods of attaining goals.
Alan also has a very practical
approach to what the ASUO ex
ecutive office can and should
do. He has faith in the indepen
dence of the programs and is
willing to help them rather than
demand of them. He has set
reasonable and relevant goals
for next year, the supporting of
child care legislation, of course
evaluations, the limiting of tui
tion levels and watching the
reapportionment of legislative
and congressional districts.
But these would not alone be
enough to gain our support.
Alan has consistently shown an
understanding of and commit
ment to changing the roles of
women and men in this society,
and, in particular, in this
University. His stance on child
care is the prime example of his
position. Quality child care is
essential to the educational op
portunity of many women and
cannot be handled adequately
through Incidental Fees. Alan is
also a firm supporter of women
in politics and in all areas of
society.
We have considered the other
candidates. None seem to blend
the experience, the concern for
the needs of students and the
support for women’s rights as
well as Alan Contreras does. We
urge your support for this can
didate.
Katherine Jones
Mary Little
Jeanna Cernazanu
Women’s Referral and
Resource Service
Correction
Dale Duhan’s letter (“Sur
vey claim," 4-16-80) was
printed incorrectly. The last
two sentences of the letter,
when submitted, read:
“As I am sure the under
graduates in my elementary
statistics classes will recog
nize, the sample used for this
estimate can not be shown to
be representative of the
whole faculty. In fact, since
the survey was sponsored by
the AFT, it is likely that the
response to the survey was
higher among AFT members
than among non-members.”
neirs
b3BR0 POOOLV
6MV6H x 10
m T I
m '
x iooolpvo deero
A6^iM$r it if
J AJAS ^
emm : '
{&N\,He
Too. MW
m) too
LOST.
! THIk)^ r.
leMwev N
i&HMlr.
mi
mr
tee
m
AfiAjUST
7
IURATI0O
.;i-^
wr *u»eAft