opinion_
Vote today — or hold your peace
ASUO president:
Wilkins best choice
More than ever, the ASUO needs a president
who will be a strong, effective advocate of student
rights and issues.
Even though the need is great, only four men
— no women — are running.
Tom Brannon, a self-proclaimed “average
student,” is right when he says student govern
ment is dominated by campus politicos, and would
benefit from fresh ideas. Unfortunately Brannon
has none.
Donovan Guy and Bruce Mills have relatively
little ASUO experience to boast of, so they have
campaigned on an anti-Rich Wilkins platform.
Wilkins, the fourth candidate, is supported by
the same law school/Greek coalition that has
been putting ASUO and IFC candidates into office
— including this year's atrocious IFC — for the past
few elections.
The biggest difference between the can
didates is proven experience. Wilkins has done a
good job as ASUO vice president for state and
university affairs, and his experience with the
Legislature will prove invaluable. Any ground that
he’s made with the Legislature will be lost if
another candidate is elected.
Wilkins probably would model his administra
tion after that of current ASUO Pres. Dave Eaton.
Eaton has managed the executive office effec
tively, and Wilkins is his natural successor.
With the law school and the Greeks endorsing
Wilkins, his victory seems likely.
We, too, endorse Wilkins. His fairness and
knowledge of the ASUO and the University make
him best qualified to respond io the concerns
voiced by students.
No dearth of good IFC candidates
Next year’s Incidental Fee Committee is going
to be one helluva lot better than this year’s com
mittee.
This year’s committee was at times rude,
unprepared, irresponsible and arbitrary. At no
time did the committee show the maturity neces
sary of a group that handles $2.5 million.
Luckily, plenty of competent candidates have
entered the field to ensure improvement on next
year’s committee.
Kathleen “Katcha” Phinney, an intelligent
and energetic sophomore, is concerned with the
welfare of student programs. She wants more
cooperation between the ASUO and IFC, and
would make a fine committee member.
Xavier Romano would bring a unique per
spective to the committee along with his dedica
tion and desire. Romano, a Latin Jew who is in the
Chi Psi fraternity, has done his^ homework on all
ASUO programs, not just the Third World pro
grams he’s been involved with.
Alan Contreras sen/ed on the committee in
1979-80, and would give next year’s group added
experience. Unfortunately, Contreras enjoys the
political games that have helped ruin the IFC this
year. Still, his track record is excellent.
Second-year law student Karsten Rasmussen
isn’t familiar with individual ASUO programs, but
is determined to make IFC hearings forthright.
Rasmussen correctly states that programs “got
the shaft” because the IFC was not candid this
year. His experience on the EMU Board has given
him suitable budgetary experience.
David Gibson has also done his homework on
ASUO programs. He’s concerned with addressing
the needs of the programs and not being rude.
This year’s committee didn’t take the time to do
their jobs right, he says.
Ken Packman has been on the wrong side of
the IFC this year — as a member of the Food-Op.
He’s seen what a dishonest and adversarial com
mittee can do, and would add social conscience to
the committee.
Law student Steve Baldwin has worked for
OSPIRG, and echoes Packman’s disregard for
this year’s committee. Baldwin, who has a mas
ter’s degree in philosophy, wants to instill some
accountability to the committee.
Pam Jordan and Cathi Balone would make
adequate committee members, but neither are as
enthusiastic as the top seven candidates. Jordan
filed for the post, withdrew, then withdrew her
withdrawal. Balone, a law student, doesn’t seem
to be familiar with the committee.
The other two candidates, Jonathan Bern
stein and John Miche, both have ideas about the
issues, but neither knows enough about the IFC or
the ASUO programs.
We urge you to vote for Phinney, Romano,
Contreras, Rasmussen, Gibson, Packman and
Baldwin.
Gus Palmitessa, the running mate of pre
sidential candidate Rich Wilkins, has apparently
lined up an entire Greek/law school “ticket.” It
looks like nothing more than an endorsement of
their seven favored candidates.
Regardless of who’s “on” the ticket, it’s
important to judge the candidates individually.
vars
Join marchers
A month before his March 1980 assas
sination, El Salvador’s Archbishop Oscar
Romero asked that the U.S. government
prohibit military aid to his country. He
asked also that our government not in
tervene with military, economic or di
plomatic pressure. Intervention by the
U.S. government, the archbishop said,
would “undoubtedly aggravate the re
pression and injustice against the or
ganized people who have been strug
gling for their fundamental human
rights.” News reports tell us Romero was
right.
The April 18th Coalition is outraged by
U.S. government’s intervention in El Sal
vador — that’s why we are taking to
Eugene’s streets on Saturday, April 21.
We want to publicly demonstrate our
resistance to policies which cut pro
grams for poor and working people at
home and divert resources to repressive
governments abroad.
We re asking people to join us in Sa
turday’s march, which departs from 13th
and Kincaid at noon. A 1 p.m. rally at the
11th and Willamette parking lot will fea
ture speakers Ricardo Melara, of El Sal
vador; Congressman Jim Weaver; Susan
Morales, American Indian Movement;
Sue Gordon, Oregon Church Women
United; Gene Bailey, International Long
shoreman Workers' Union, and Marion
Malcolm, Clergy and Laity Concerned
We are planning an evening cultural
event and potluck at the Emerald Baptist
Church.
The April 18th Coalition is a broad
based organization of more than 90 local
groups and individuals We have banded
together to oppose U.S. internvention in
Dano i Qortinn A
El Salvador, and to support the right of
the Salvadoran people to self-determin
ation. Please join us on Saturday.
Kell Osborn
and co-signers
Courts unjust
The recent “Martin vs Rostker" deci
sion concerning draft registration goes
to show our courts will trample on the
Constitution, if doing so will further the
interests of Federal power even at the
expense of the civil rights of U S. ci
tizens.
“Liberty Lobby,” a grass-roots con
servative organization, opposes the draft
and forced registration. They brought
the suit to court challenging the consti
tutionality of ex-President Carter’s regis
tration plan which forces 18-20 year olds
to register for any future draft. The or
ganization contends the current law
violates the Due Process clause of the
Fifth Amendment by singling out only a
particular segment of our population
who happen to be a certain age.
Strangely enough, U S. District judge
Thomas A Flannery actually sided with
those against the law, but only in princi
ple Unfortunately, he upheld current
registration guidelines declaring them in
government’s “legitimate governmental
interest.” So much for the Constitution. It
seems in the government’s interests to
ignore it.
Allowing government the power to
exercise ownership over certain citizens
of a particular age is a dangerous
precendent to establish if you cherish
living in a free country. What will the
future be like if Americans sit back and
allow their Constitutional rights to con
tinue eroding away in favor of
“governmental interests”? Aggressive
foreign nations may pose a danger but
the greatest current threat to democracy
is a strong, centralized government.
Madison and Jefferson realized this 200
years ago — lets not forget it now.
Michael Cross
Junior, political science
Emotionally blinded
James D. Miller’s editorial (4-8, “Love
It or Leave It) is a good example of what
happens when you write an editorial in
an emotional frame of mind without any
regard to the logic of what you are say
ing.
In the initial paragraph he implies that
anyone that opposes forced military
conscription is a “commie sissy.” Ob
viously he also feels this is an accurate
description of President Reagan's ad
ministration which has taken a position
against forced military service.
Miller goes on to say that those who
evaded the totalitarian-like practice of
coerced servitude in the military service
by skipping to Canada were “cowards"
and "had no right to return,” even after
they were pardoned by Mr Ford for their
so-called "crime." These citizens did not
desert because of fear but, rather,
because they were courageous enough
to stand behind their own convictions
and refused to participate in a war for
which they saw no cause.
Mr. Miller then further shows how his
emotions have successfully blinded his
power to reason by making the glaring
generalization that these draft evaders
"are the same people who stand and
watch someone beaten to death and are
too afraid to stop it.”
Miller’s call for getting 100 percent
behind the government and his chast
isement of Isenberg for making his com
plaints public is typical of the American
who puts blind faith in his or her some
times inept leaders, and who fails to
understand the nature of a democracy
and the active role that dissent has in
continually bettering the country in
which we all happen to live.
Looking at the thrust of Mr. Miller’s
statement, perhaps he should make a
career out of serving his country; he
seems to be one of the few, the proud,
and the ignorant that the Marines are
looking for.
Steve Thompson
2060 Alder Street
letters policy
The Emerald will accept and at
tempt to print all letters containing
fair comment on issues, ideas and
topics of interest to the University
community. Letters must be limited
to 250 words.
Each letter must be signed and
the author’s field of study or faculty
or staff status noted. Each should
be dated, and must also include
the address and phone number of
the author for verification prior to
publication.
The Emerald reserves the right
to edit any letter for length, style or
content. Publication of letters is
dependent upon available space
and can not be guaranteed