Costly action
One wonders why the financially
strapped University which has cut
programs, financial assistance, GTF po
sitions, and maintenance of facilities; the
impoverished University which is talking
of closing professional schools and
departments, and which cannot even
afford to mail grade reports and tuition
refunds to students — has now taken the
unprecedented and costly action of
mailing out Summer Course Schedules,
which could as easily have been picked
up as usual, in Oregon Hall or at
registration. Could this University be
holding out on us, or is this merely
another example of the bureaucratic
inefficiencies which drive the costs of
education up and quality down?
Hiawatha
Graduate, music & philosophy
Students’ job
In your May 20 issue, the writer of
“Whose Job is the University’s Image”
disclaims any and all responsiblity for
that image, and not only for the image
but for the University itself it seems. . .
The Emerald has a long and distin
guished tradition of being an indepen
dent newspaper. No one, I think, wants it
to become "an arm of the public rela
tions department” or insists that it cul
tivate only “a positive image for the
University.” Certainly it is the Emerald’s
responsibility to print “news that’s both
good and bad;” nor should any of the
University’s “image-makers” urge it to
ignore the bad and print only the good.
The Immorald, however, was not "news”
either good or bad; it was only, as
someone on your staff should have seen,
bad judgment. It was bad judgment to
publish, even on April Fool's Day, an
issue which could bring only harm and
disfavor to the University. For although
the Emerald is and should remain in
dependent, it should also be responsible
to the community of which it is a part.
That community knows, and the larger
community of the Emerald’s readers
knows, that the Emerald’s staff is com
posed of students, who whether they like
it or not represent the University, are
products of its educational programs,
and cannot therefore consider them
selves yet to be independent journalists,
alone responsible for whatever praise or
blame comes their way, as the staff of the
Washington Post were when they won
praise for Watergate, and bore the blame
for Janet Cooke’s hoax. The Emerald is
seen by its readers as an integral part of
the University. The Immorald may or may
not have deserved the blame it got; but
the hard fact is that it was the University
that suffered from that blame. The Im
morald dealt a blow not to the Universi
ty’s “image," but to the University itself
as a state-supported institution, at a time
when higher education is facing drastic
cuts in state support and needs all the
help it can get. The members of our
administration and our public relations
department are trying hard, and not
hypocritically, to present the University's
best side, to explain its real excellence in
order to preserve that excellence.
As for the troubles caused by the En
vironmental Law Clinic and the Tomseth
Incident, these and the matter of the
Immorald were handled responsibly and
well by Mike Lee in that same issue.
(Admissions director Jim Buch’s quote
in) conclusion, furthermore, far from
being “unsatisfactory,” as your "Opin
ion” writer judged it, was just right:
“Anything you do, you represent the
University of Oregon." Surely there is
nothing to be lost, and much to be
gained, if we all try to represent its ex
cellence, and help to maintain it.
Carlisle Moore
English department
Erroneous name
In Sally Hodgkinson’s article about the
Campus American Civil Liberties Union
Symposium on abortion and reproduc
tive freedom May 26, she erroneously
labeled Senator Jesse Helms’ anti-abor
tion bill as the "Human Rights Amend
ment.” The bill, or series of bills of this
Oregon Daily Emerald
I
subject should either be identified as the
“Human Life Amendment” or the
“Human Life Statute.” Calling such a bill
as a “Human Right” surely degrades
those who believe in a woman’s choice
as her right.
Steve Schneider
Campus ACLU
‘Judge not, lest. . . ’
Once again I am disturbed by what I
label as “the Christian double standard.”
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ a
mixture of Eugene religious groups, pur
porting to be Christian, tried to disrupt
and stop the speaking engagement of
Robert Artison, witch and high priest of
the Wiccan religion. As a guest of 4th
floor Carson, Mr. Artison was invited to
share with us his views on the Wiccan
religion and witchcraft on May 20.
Unfortunately, he was met by a group
of rude and righteous Christians who,
hoping to “warn” the audience against
this evil “devil,” seemed to have lost
sight of two of America’s basic First
Amendment rights: freedom of religion
and speech. One Christian gentleman
repeatedly and loudly yelled, “The devil
is here; the devil is within.” On the con
trary. I contend that the devil lies not
within Mr. Artison, but within Christian
groups who in religious fervor and zeal
try to suppress my civil liberties by dic
tating what I can and cannot listen to.
I would like to remind the Christian
gentlemen that tried to bar Mr. Artison’s
way into the Gold Room, and were
eventually escorted off the premises, that
the razor edge of censorship can work
both ways. Many religious groups are
allowed the use of Carson for their Bible
studies, and the residents have always
repected their right to religious practice.
Likewise, I expect these Christian groups
to give Mr. Artison an equal opportunity
to express his views on religion, no mat
ter how off-the-wall and different from
mainstream society they may seem, and
to respect my right to attend and listen to
his presentation.
In the final outcome the acceptance or
rejection of an idea, be it religious,
scientific, or economic, will lie with the
individual listener, not with a self-right
eous, censoring group. Perhaps Chris
tians and non-Christians alike could
benefit from following a simple teaching
in Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be
not judged. For with the judgment you
pronounce you will be judged, and the
measure you give will be the measure
you get.”
Clayton Lance
Senior, English
Amputation best?
The air is full of statements purporting
to represent the faculty that staff and
faculty cuts are preferable to salary
POPEjOIIIN PAUL II 2/19/81
"THE. CHI RCII W 11 1 NKV ER IMI.I TE I>R CHANCE
IT’S TEACHING ON MAKKI \GE AND THE I \MII \ ..
reductions because pay cuts will "wea
ken" the university. Surely the trauma of
dismemberment must have some wea
kening effect on the main body!
I believe that to survive the virus of the
amputation will depend ultimately on an
act of will; a mental, emotional, and
physical rallying of all our institutional
powers.
I don't know just what principles are
thought to be served by the support for
program or staff cuts but isn't it time for
those who hold the principle of integrity
in high regard to come out of hiding and
damn the strategies?
The faculty of the Department of Fine
and Applied Arts has my notice of motion
for a proposed statement of preference
for some form of salary reduction rather
than solutions that would have worsen
ing effects on student access and
program continuity.
I hope similar proposals are surfacing
all over campus. A clear demonstration
of our unity and resolve has never been
more necessary. If we can face our
dilemmas, community intact, we may find
a strength which is uncommon and never
to be found when the survival of those
presumed fittest reigns.
George Kokis
Associate Professor
Fine and Applied Arts
Kick squirrels
Lately, I have read quite a few articles
in the Emerald about squirrels. Most
have been negative and until yesterday, I
was rooting for the squirrels. But enough
is enough. I was walking home from
school, minding my own business, when
a whole gang of them (must have been at
least five) stepped in my path on Kincaid
I practically tripped over them. Fortuna
tely, they gave me advance warning; one
of the little buggers yelled "stop.” Being
one who follows the directions of Eugene
natives, I quickly stopped But that was
the extent of my cooperation with them,
for next I was asked to walk on the other
side of the street.
The nerve of those squirrels, I thought
I told them I had as much a right as they
did to walk on either side of the street
They disagreed. That’s okay, but when
they lifted me up by my feet and
proceeded to plant me on the other side
of the street, I retaliated After they set
me down (on the other side of the street, I
might add), I said, "oh, yeah,” and
kicked two of them up in the air. The
other three scuttled away.
My advice to all you humans out there
is the following: the only way to keep the
squirrels in line is to kick them
Otherwise, you'll have to walk on the
other side of the street.
Jay Leisner
Junior, finance
Page 5