opinion
yours
Opinion piece
In the May 7 Emerald, there was an
artiqle in Thursday Revue on National
Public Radio. This piece of writing
belonged on an opinion page, not in an
entertainment section.
It started out validly enough as an
informative article, telling of the radio
drama heard on NPR stations KWAX and
KLCC.
Then writer Joe Cone started referring
to "the opposition between good and
evil" and how the Death Star could
"destroy entire planets." But, somehow,
Cone got on a pessimistic track about
Reagan, the U S. defense system and the
space shuttle The article is tied up
loosely by words of doom about NPR’s
funding woes caused by Reagan’s
budget cutting.
Somehow, this opinion piece made the
connection between the space shuttle
and the defense system seem like fact.
This article should never have been
printed it in that form. On the surface,
Cone’s article was about the radio play.
But its real point was to attack the
Reagan administration and the space
defense policy.
It could be argued that Cone was giv
ing a perspective on what Star Wars
really meant to earth-bound U S. ci
tizens. Perhaps. But if that were his
intention, the article should have started
that way. Instead it began with an infor
mative look at a radio play and then
launched into an attack on Reagan
policy.
The article was an example of mis
leading journalism. It should have been
edited for inclusion in Thursday Revue
by leaving out the reference to U S.
military capability in space. If that were
done, I would be pleased — the Star Wars
portion was well done.
It could also have been used on the
opinion page, prominently marked as an
opinion. In that case, I would urge Cone
to strengthen his arguments against
military uses of space, and to shorten the
irrelevant reference to Star Wars.
As a journalist and as a member of the
Society of Professional Journalists, I was
angered by this article’s invasion into a
usually outstanding paper.
Bryon V. Caloz
Journalism & computer science
graduate
Disgraceful Dave
Plodding through the drizzle on my
way to class Friday, I stopped to pick up a
'ANY&OW GOT ANY USE TOR A THIN, WIDE LIBERAL?'
Page 4
I
IT CbMTS WIH THE TERRITORY
PBB6S <VAi»t>T¥
copy of the Emerald. Much to my disgust,
WHO should be (dis)gracing the front
page but Dave Sweeney — "the man I
love to hate"!
“Forecaster enjoys zany weather an
tics. ”1 read To this I reply, I'm cer
tainly glad HE does! Personally, I find
weather forecasts geared to the intellect
of mentally inept fourth graders to be
insulting. I have nothing against adding a
little "zip” or “zing” to the news, but 5
find Dave’s TV presentations to be as
pleasant and entertaining as Cathy
Rigby’s.
I have often questioned the skill, talent,
and educational background required by
KEZI to be a weatherman. Suprisingly, I
read, Dave at least has an educational
background.
Finally, in the future, I hope the
Emerald can find something more timely
and important to put on the front page. I
suggest putting any future ‘ Dave
Sweeney” articles in a more appropriate
place — by the comics!
James Gill
Junior
Feminist racism?
I find the upcoming Women’s Sympo
sium to be very important in the educa
tion of everyone, especially when the
ERA has already been defeated in a
major state such as Illinois and the
govenrment lies in the hands of a poli
tical party openly opposing the ERA.
With racism on the rise and with violence
against women a daily fact, the Women’s
Symposium is a necessity. That is why I
am concerned about the way the sym
posium workshops have been announ
ced.
The flyer announces: “Women's Sym
posium racism: taking action ” The
workshops are listed in three separate
groups: “For white women only,” “for
women of color only,” and for a mixed
group.
I find it very hard to believe that the
struggle against racial discrimination will
be successful if, to develop it, one
separates people based on their color.
The simultaneity of the workshops is a
valid way to make people choose the one
that interests them the most according to
their priorities. But the words used in the
flyer are clear. “Three separate groups,”
and the word “only,' points out very
clearly the intentions of the organizers —
compulsory separation of women by skin
color and not their particular interest.
The struggle is for women’s rights. Why
aren’t they allowing women to exercise
the right to participate in a workshop
about an ethnic group different than their
own?
You can have three workshops at the
same time about different racial issues
related to women. But you cannot deny
the right of human beings to participate
in whatever they like if you base your
decision on the race or sex of that human
being.
Incidently, I wonder if that segregation
established in the Women’s Symposium,
which is based on race and sex, doesn’t
violate the University policy: “the
University of Oregon affirms the right of
all individuals to equal opportunity in
education and employment, without
regard to age, race, religion, color, sex,
marital status, handicap, national origin
or any other extraneous considerations
not related to effective performance.”
Finally, I would say that those words
“For white women only" resemble
similar ones that used to be posted on
bathroom doors not long ago in the racist
south.
Sergio Antillano
Graduate, interdisciplinary studies
Reagan euphoria
While I was in South Africa last winter,
there was a general feeling of euphoria
among the white ruling minority of that
country; less than a week before my
arrival Ronald Reagan had become
President of the United States. To white
South Africans this meant more passive
acceptance by the U S. government of
their inhumane racial segregation policy
of apartheid. It also meant a more overt
policy of support for their brutal cam
paign against the people of Namibia and
Angola.
During my two-month stay, I was able
to witness the day-to-day horror that
black South Africans experience under
the oppressive white regime that con
trols their country. I was also able to
speak to a number of recently dis
charged soldiers about their experience
in the South African Defense Force. The
acts of violence being committed against
the rightful owners of Namibia, South
Africa and Angola by the South African
government cannot and must not be
ignored.
Since my return, I have grown in
creasingly concerned with the American
foreign policy that has since taken shape
towards that region of the African con
tinent. Now that our nation’s honeymoon
with racist South Africa has been further
clarified by Foreign Minister Roelof F.
Botha’s recent visit to the White House
(May 15), I hope the American people will
take a much closer look at their country’s
relationship with both this and other
repressive neo-fascist regimes in “the
free world.”
Christian Gunther
Sophomore, undeclared
Tuesday, May 19,1981