Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 6, 1981)
opinion Battle over, but IFC policy war continues Noting the Incidental Fee Committee’s recent rejection of the Student Genealogical As sociaion’s goals, we wonder why the same goals were approved when the group called itself the Latter Day Saints' Student Association. In a dramatic change of opinion, the Inciden tal Fee Committee rejected funding goals for the Mormons Tuesday. And while we applaud the final verdict, we still question the reasoning used to get there. Committee members seem bent on maintain ing the illusion of consistency. The three members who reversed their earlier votes say there is a lack of student interest in the SGA's goals. But the rejected goals are virtually identical to the goals approved for the LDSSA, and those vote-changing committee members haven’t ex plained why they felt student interest was suf ficient two weeks ago. One viable theory for the sudden change is that the IFC ran scared from veto threats by ASUO Pres. Dave Eaton. Perhaps committee members realized the renamed group’s goals were similar enough to the originals that Eaton’s veto threat still applied. Rejecting the goals was a simple way to put the controversial issue to rest. Unfortunately the committee didn’t clarify its hazy policy in rejecting the SGA’s goals. By dis carding the goals on student-interest grounds, the committee failed to address the religion vs. culture question. So where’s the consistency? The IFC is no closer to answering policy questions posed by the LDSSA request than it was when the Campus Crusade for Christ made similar pleas last term. The root of the problem, a hazy IFC funding policy, is still on record. The committee will fund groups that are primarily cultural, not religious, the policy states. But the LDSSA demonstrated the ease with which any group can claim a “un ique culture.” Conceivably, every religion in the world can meet that criterion if its goals are worded in IFC-acceptable language. Inconsistencies in following that policy have rendered it even less feasible. Campus Crusade for Christ was denied funding. The Muslims’ goals were approved. The Mormons’ goals were ap proved then rejected, but not in accordance with the culture-religion policy. The IFC needs a new, specific, workable policy. It also needs members who are unafraid to research funding applicants instead of obtaining information for the first time in the meeting room. A drastic change of opinion ended the fund ing hopes of the Mormons. A drastic change of policy is now needed to end goal-hearing confu sion. V va jrs Hostage hoopla I write this to say "fooey” to the mind dulling propaganda staged by the media (as a tool to revivie patriotism) about the hostage crisis Not that I don’t personally sympathize with the sufferings of the hostages, but far more significant and newsworthy is the massive sufferings of third world populations as a result of much more serious and devastating form of political captivity. People rave about the 52 hostages, but what of the U.S. supported slaughter of people in El Sal vador fighting for basic human needs? Politically and economically exploited people get angry and become willing to fight and die to end their misery. The media and our political leaders refuse to view the Iranian captors in this manner, but instead explain they are irate bar barians and call them “savages.” But who is the real savage in terms of econ omic exploitation and political domination? Robbie Post Sophomore, Economics and Sociology And five co-signers An elusive ideal I was reminded of the elusive ideal of "responsible fair play" upon reading an essay sponsored by the American Federation of Teachers in the Jan. 19 issue of “The Chronicle of Higher Education." The piece is entitled "The Vulnerable Academy" and was written by a mathematician, Robert M Nielsen, and an historian, Irwin H. Polishook The following observations, based loosely on selected parts of the com mentary identified above, are relevant to us here at the University — as well as elsewhere in the groves of academe. Regarding the jailing, not long ago, of Prof. James A Dinnan for refusing to divulge his vote in the denial of promo tion and tenure to Maija Blaubergs at the University of Georgia, it should be noted that. The right of professors to recommend who should be retained as teach ers in American higher education is indispensable to preserving the integrity of the academic process. Freedom from outside pressure must be granted if the quality and function of higher education in a free society are to be maintained. I On the other hand, fair procedures should be established so that an in dividual who is not recommended for retention on a faculty can learn the rea sons supporting such a judgment — and then decide whether or not to mount an appeal. Was the determination in accord with accepted canons of academic freedom? Did it reflect holistic consider ation of professional performance? Were peer evaluations free of malice, bias and arbitrary discrimination? In short, an adequate “due process" structure requires that the reasons for negative personnel actions be clearly stated. Only then can those receiving unfavorable evaluations decide intel ligently about whether to dispute the appraisals in question. Accordingly, while the appropriate ness of not disclosing the personal iden tities of those who vote pro and con on a personnel action can be defended (up to a point, in my opinion), it is also of paramount importance that we maintain a balanced perspective and affirm that “the fabric of academic life is no stronger than its own internal commitment to a fair treatment of the humblest professor” (page nine). Ronald J. Rousseve, Ph.D. Professor of Counselor Education : ENTERED THE CVAl OFFICE, THE CHAIR— HlS CHAIR!. $AT WW BEHIND THE PRESIDENTS DESK— |K DESK vm,gee!1 he Gulped,'m is it,.,this is really if" ■ -'mimsm* ■'muGOSH, HESMDGRIMLT, MUNMfHHD ' OUT BT STANDING HERE!' THE RIONE RWG,<= jPPHGAN TMftrin<NAHCrB33 Iglenn boetteher even editors get the blues Quack! Once the word was little more than the most-celebrated utterance in any duck’s vocabulary. But a new campus publica tion has given it an extra meaning. More than just a few tail feathers were trimmed in the Emerald offices last week when the first issue of Quack - a ”pre Mother’s Day” tour de force — hit the campus newsstands. “Why in the hell haven't we been covering international news,” screamed the Emerald editor He didn’t wait for an answer. We knew excuses were pointless. Quack, the new alternative student Page 4 publication, had stolen a huge chunk of our audience — those students with a burning need for in-depth international news coverage - while we had settled for covering only campus news. According to an editor’s statement in the first issue, Quack will give students the international news they don't get from the regular campus paper. Judging from the first issue, Quack's staff is keeping down reporter costs by borrow ing international news and related pho tographs from wire reports that appear in other papers. We should have thought of that first,” lamented the editor. "So the quacks out-hustled us this time.” The resemb lance to William Randolph Hearst was startling. Some of us said that maybe wire ser vice reports aren't really that great. Maybe they don’t really provide all that accurate a picture of international events, we suggested meekly. "Listen,” the editor roared. "Those wire service reporters are just like us - they’re objective. "But if it’ll make you feel better, we’ll hire correspondants to scour the globe for hard-hitting international news that students can trust." We asked about the astronomical costs of broadening the Emerald’s scope so drastically. "We ll triple the size of the advertising department,” snapped the editor. Well, what if the student advertising market is already saturated and we can’t triple ad sales. "Quit picking nits,” he exploded "Be realistic!” Then we argued in vain that students might actually benefit from a larger var iety of campus publications. Maybe students need other points of view, fresh perspectives — no matter how lackadai sical. Maybe the Emerald isn’t enough, we whispered. We probably shouldn’t have said that
