■ ■
opinion
UE
greg wasson
a quorum of one
The ballot is almost always referred to as an
offensive power. In our system of majority rule, the
civics-class notion is that if you just band enough
people together you can force the changes that
you want.
However, introduction of the student unem
ployment bill is evidence that voting has defensive
capabilities too. Unfortunately, students haven’t
used that either As a class, they have an ex
tremely poor attendance record at the polls, and
failing that leaves them wide open to attacks like
this legislation.
What the bill would do is create the presump
tion that any full-time student is unavailable for
employment and therefore ineligible for benefits if
they should lose their current job
Currently, students are a suspect class and
subjected to close scrutinization by the em
ployment division, but as with other claiments,
they are denied money only if the state can prove
they don’t fit the required catagories of able,
available and actively seeking work.
The bill would shift the burden of proof from
the state to the individual making it, in the words of
one representative, “supremely difficult” for a
laid-off student to collect.
Why were students singled out? Let's look at
the situation from the industry's perspective.
Unemployment insurance is too high, and a
sure way to reduce the cost is to reduce the
number of claiments. That takes legislative action,
and lawmakers are hesitant to mess with the
people who they would like to ask for another
term The answer? Attack a segment of the
population that doesn't vote.
Luckily for students, that attack wasn't well
coordinated.
First came the admission from the employment
division that there really is no substantial record of
student abuse of the program. Then came the
lame assurance that the bill wouldn't really bring
about a significant change. If that’s the case,
queried one committee member, why approve the
bill? For administrative ease, responded the wit
ness It would make our case stronger if our denial
is appealed
In other words, the alteration would make it
much more difficult for students to collect.
Next up, a business representative pointed
out to the committee that the almost routine denial
of student claims used to be the law in Oregon, but
the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the deci
sion in the mid-'70s. Implying that everyone knows
that the courts insist on burdening us with unrea
soned and unjustified decisions, the witness ap
pealed to the committee to return to the prior
practice.
Not mentioned, of course, is the fact that the
student of today is much different that the student
of pre-1970.
Many scholars now have families and jobs in
addition to their studies. Why shouldn’t they be
entitled to the same help as their counterparts
who reject the rigors of study?
It would appear that a majority of the commit
tee acting on the bill feels that they should, and
students can rest assured that their trips to the
“enjoyment” office won’t suddenly become less
fruitful.
vours
IFC, religion
I am writing in regard to Thursday's
editorial “IFC needs to respect church
state limits." As a member of the In
cidental Fee Committee I feel it is neces
sary to respond
First, though an Emerald reporter
covered our policy meeting last week
where we discussed the issue of funding
religious groups, she apparently did not
tell you what had been decided The
consensus of the committee was that
each group with religious overtones
would have to convince the IFC that it
was not promoting religion and so eligi
ble for IFC funding. That is exactly what
happened the next day at the goal hear
ings for Campus Crusade for Christ and
the Latter Day Saints Student Associa
tion.
My next issue of contention with your
editorial is that there wasn't one Emerald
reporter at that hearing (even though you
were informed about it) It is beyond me
how you can comment about a hearing
when you don't know exactly what was
said there What did happen was that the
CCC could not convince the committee it
r
had any function outside of promoting
Christ. However, the LDSSA was able to
convince four members (myself includ
ed) that it was not at all in the business of
promoting religion
This brings me to another issue raised
in your editorial which bothered me.
Though the editorial's title proclaims the
IFC should "respect church-state
limits," I do not believe you know what
those limits are We do because we
talked with legal counsel and did some
research on the issue State monies (and
so incidental fees) may not be used to
fund a religious organization That is the
law In addition, eight years ago the
Oregon Attorney General laid down five
criteria by which to judge whether or not
a group has a religious function They
are 1) its stated purpose; 2) its governing
group and clientele, and the degree of
religion involved; 3) its relationship with
other religious institutions; 4) the place
of religion in its activities; and 5) its
image
Those are the criteria by which the IFC
will judge a group Any student organ
ization which can convince the commit
tee that it is not promoting religion is
eligible for funding. That is what the
LDSSA did and the CCC could not do.
Lastly I take issue with your suggestion
that Dave Eaton ‘‘correct this glaring
inconsistency in IFC policy." Where you
think Eaton has this power I don’t know.
All he can do is veto any funds we may
later allocate; he cannot veto a goal
approval
In the future I suggest you attend IFC
meetings at which decisions are made
with which you may later disagree. This
to get your facts straight. Also, in the
future, you might research the law before
you insinuate we are acting in an un
constitutional manner.
Richard Sontag
2nd year law
Biased coverage
How shall we touch one another when
the Oregonian, the Register-Guard, the
Emerald and broadcast media ‘‘engineer
public opinion" by blocking the “First
Amendment goal of achieving the widest
possible dissemination of information
from diverse and antagonistic sources"?
(436 U S 775.)
t
A case in point is an Emerald editor
telling me she killed coverage of my legal
complaint against lawyer/legislators un
constitutionally serving in two branches
of government (3 Oregon Constitution
par 1) because (a) it was not a University
concern and (b) my personal vendetta!
She apparently disagrees with the
concept of constitutional supremacy (6
U S Constitution par 2) and remembers
a March 7, 1978 Emerald story about
lawyers/insurers/public officials ob
structing my Oregon Workers’ Compen
sation restoration petition drive and
recent closure of my injury claim without
benefit of de-novo judicial review, which
was followed by a U S. Supreme Court
refusal to review violations of said civil
rights.
It is lawyers' "abuse of power," not my
“vendetta” at issue here!
How can you ignore lawyers’ uncon
stitutionally being legislators when their
Oregon State Bar Association monopoly,
(ORS Chapter 9) violates Sherman anti
trust laws and is now subject to legisla
tive sunset review?
How can you ignore lawyers use of the
courts as political retribution weapons
against (a) public participation; (b) laws
in effect as of date of contract; (c) circuit
and appellant court review of adminis
trative orders; (d) oral argument and (e)
findings of fact and conclusions of law
demands?
As a 48-year-old University of Oregon
School of Business insurance major
graduate with a story to tell that could
only help others because my case has
run its corrupted course, I call upon the
spirit of Thomas Paine to unblock our
media as a seeker of truth and protector
of justice!
John M. Reed
1295 “B” Street
Springfield
letters policy
The Emerald will accept and try
to print all letter containing fair
comment on ideas and topics of
interest to the University com
munity. Letters must be typewrit
ten and no longer than 250
words
Letters must be signed, the
author s field of study or faculty
status noted and must include
address and phone number for
verification.