opinion
Whose job is the University’s image?
Just who is responsible for the image of the
University?
A series of articles on the University’s image
makers that concludes in today's news pages
doesn’t give a satisfactory answer. Each adminis
trator, faculty and staff member and student has a
different perspective.
And some condemn the Emerald — and other
student-oriented groups — for not carefully cul
tivating a positive image for the University. But
most University students and administrators
realize that a student newspaper isn’t — and
shouldn’t be — an arm of the public relations
department.
The Emerald gives its own, independent view
of campus events. That means news that’s both
good and bad — news that maybe the University’s
image-makers would rather we’d ignore.
That’s the job of any paper. "The press” is far
from perfect, but it shares that general commit
ment.
University administrators are paid hefty
salaries to defend the school, take flak, smooth
rough spots and handle oft-heated complaints.
And that’s their job.
It’s a mistake to assume that others — the
student newspaper or other students — share the
same responsibilities. The administration creates
not a facade but a scrim, a carefully constructed
gauze through which the University is viewed.
They accentuate the positive and minimize the
negative.
It’s the students' job to do what they like —
accentuate, minimize or remain neutral. The duty
of a University is to serve students, not to ask
students to serve the University.
Like a magician, the University’s administra
tors must often distract the eye with a well-timed
sleight of hand — to tell the public to look at the
good and not at the controversy.
That’s their job. And that’s okay. But students,
and student newspapers, occasionally will tear
that gauze and accentuate what administrators
would rather minimize.
That’s okay, too. Because that’s our job.
yours
Any better plans?
Former Rep. Bill Rogers of Vida
recently wrote to this space, urging
students to write their senator in Salem
regarding House Bill 2001, the reappor
tionment plan. Rogers stated, correctly,
that newly-created House District 38 is a
grotesque and politically nonsensical
district, stretching as it does from Plea
sant Hill in Lane County to Canby in
Clackamas County, with little but hills in
between, it is undoubtedly the worst
district to come out of the legally man
dated reapportionment process, and I,
too, hope that it can be changed without
upsetting the delicate population
balance now obtaining in the urbanized
areas of the county.
The problem with reshaping legislative
districts, which must be done after each
census, is that districts must be of equal
population, within very narrow toler
ances. This session, the House leader
ship in both parties decided that the line
formed by the crest of the Cascades was
to be politically inviolate, i.e., no district
would cross the mountains to include
people on both sides. This sensible idea
spawned the monstrosity known as Dis
trict 38, by forcing all of the Willamette
Valley districts to "sag” to the south in
order to absorb some of the population
increases in the Rogue Valley. When the
existing Lane County districts, notably
District 44, had to move to the south, the
people who lived in northern 44 had to be
put somewhere.
The original version of HB 2001 put the
Pleasant Hill, McKenzie Valley and Mar
cola voters into District 37, which also
included Halsey, Sweet Home and Har
risburg. That plan was dropped in order
to appease Rep. Liz VanLeeuwen,
R-Halsey, who didn’t want all those Lane
County voters in her district. It was easy
to dump those voters into newly-created
District 38 because it has no incumbent
to complain about the tortuous boun
daries the district has.
Rep. Peggy Jolin, D-Cottage Grove, is
understandably upset that many people
who are currently her constituents will be
unloaded into this pseudo-district for
reasons of political convenience
Anyone who can think of a better plan
should follow Bill Rogers’ advice and
write to their senator
Alan Contreras
Sweeney swell
I think James Gill is a spoil sport — that
is, I like Dave Sweeney’s approach to
weather reporting There are many im
portant aspects of our society that
require a serious perspective, but I feel
life is much too short to maintain this
serious frame of mind about every single
aspect of our lives. Live a little, laugh a
lot, let yourself be silly once in a while
A CaaIUm A
ft*
What does it hurt? Dave isn’t gearing his
report to "the intellect of mentally inept
fourth graders," he is simply being silly,
brightening his life as well as ours. If
you’re offended by this just change the
channel.
While I’m on the subject of silly, let me
share with you some resolutions of a
90-year-old spoil sport: If I had my life to
live over again, I would:
* Not get such good grades, except
by accident.
* Go barefoot more often
* Dare to make more mistakes next
time.
* Play hooky more.
* Have more actual troubles and
fewer imaginary ones.
* Pick more daisies.
* Be sillier than I have been this trip.
You see, I've been one of those people
who live sensibly and sanely hour after
hour, day after day.
Mike Edwards
Senior, physics
Malcontents
Well, I knew it wouldn’t be long before
the Revolutionary Communist Youth
Brigade got its opportunistic hands into
the “Support Bobby Sands" movement.
After all, what terrorist group do they not
support? Their praise for the murdering
saboteurs of the Mid-East — the PLO — is
unending, even though Israel is the best
defense that region has against further
Soviet advances. Their high words of
approval for the violence and terror
caused by the IRA is equally limitless. I
sincerely wonder whether these “com
munists” support “communism” or just
“terrorism.”
Had the RCYB checked the facts of the
matter, they would have seen that the law
of Northern Ireland requires a majority
vote at a plebiscite calling for British
withdrawal before the British could
leave. Such referendums have been held
and in each one the pro-British position
has won overwhelming majorities. It
seems that the RCYB is not interested in
the rights of the majority, just in the rights
of a violent and illegal minority.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain,
Margaret Thatcher, is doing what is
necessary to combat the disastrous
socialist policies of past British govern
ments. In her campaign she never said
that the fight would be pleasant, but the
long-term benefits from fiscal sanity and
economic freedom will be well worth
whatever discomfort the British are
going through at this time Mrs. Thatcher
is a great world leader and her domestic
and international policies are in the best
interests of the British people as well as
all people who cherish peace, freedom
and prosperity
One last point, the RCYB claims to
hate the “Soviet Capitalists" as much as
they hate the U.S. and every representa
tive, govenment. And yet, when was the
last time they had a rally supporting the
liberation of the enslaved Afghans?
When was the last time they marched to
protest Soviet imperialism in eastern
Europe? The only conclusion I can reach
is, whatever their motives (and they’re
highly suspect), they are nothing more
than chronic malcontents who can offer
no workable plan for change, but still call
for a revolution. Let's just hope that the
American people continue to see
through this group which supports inter
national terrorism and opposes all
democratically elected government.
Mike Rumble
Junior, political science
letters policy
Letters are limited to 250
words, and each must be signed
and the author’s field of study or
faculty-staff status noted. Letters
should be dated, and must in
clude the author’s address and
phone number for verification.
The Emerald reserves the right to
edit any letter for length, style or
content.
Wednesday. Mav 20. 1981