Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 3, 1983)
<%r your turn ROIC and homosexuality On May 4, 1983 faculty members of the University will be asked to vote on Prof. Cheyney Ryan’s motion deal ing with three issues concer ning Reserve Officer’s Train ing Corps: scholarships, the upper division program, and faculty appointments. Prof. Ryan’s concern relates to a Department of Defense’s policy that precludes homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. A number of people have asked me to explain my role in the management of ROTC as this does have a bearing on the issue. I do two things: As a University department head, I manage an educa tional program; as a lieute nant colonel and represen tative of the executive branch of government, I manage the process by which second lieutenants are commission ed in the Army. The educa tion program conforms to University policies, the com missioning process con forms to Department of Defense policies. ROTC scholarships are part of the commissioning process. Scholarships are awarded by the Army Train ing and Doctrine Command, not by the Department of Military Science at this University. The recipients can use their scholarships at any university with a ROTC program. As an army officer, I provide information and assistance to applicants. I do encourage University students to apply for the scholarships and to use them here. ROTC upper division classes, like our lower divi sion classes, are part of the University’s educational pro gram and, as such, are open to all students. For those who desire a commission, the route through the pro cess includes the comple tion of lower and upper divi sion military science classes, a physical examina tion and contracting prior to the start of upper division courses. ROTC faculty appoint ments conform to all Univer sity policies. When an officer is nominated for an appoint ment, sexual preference is not an issue. The nomina tion, along with the officer’s vita, three Setters of recom mendation, and a personal statement are submitted to the University's (acuity ROTC Advisory Committee. The committee recommends acceptance or rejection to the President. The Department of Defense policy is clear. The commissioning process, which in effect is offering the opportunity of post graduation employment, conforms to that policy. I think the policy’s implemen tation bears upon the issue. Sexual preference is not ask ed nor sought during the pro cess. If the information is volunteered, I would, if ap propriate, advise the in dividual of the ramifications. You must decide for yourselves if the University and its students are well served by the opportunities afforded by ROTC. There is no question that Oregon graduates have served the ar my and their country well. I look forward to seeing you at the May 4 assembly. Steven Woifgram Woltgram is head of the military science department and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. army. letters Dissenting Dissenting from conven tional wisdom is a lonely ex perience. Questioning the in itiative designating the Univer sity as a nuclear-free zone will not intimidate me. This initiative establishes the University “as a Nuclear Free Zone wherein the design, testing, production, deploy ment, and use of nuclear weapons is prohibited. Any other research supporting the development of nuclear weapons is also prohibited. The University of Oregon hereby denounces the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons as a defense.. Students For a Nuclear Free Future petitioned the initiative on the ballot. It passed by a 3,283 to 885 vote. I voted against this initiative because I think it is vague and foolhardy. For example, how is this going to affect the nuclear physics courses in the physics department? Who will have the authority to deter mine what constitutes research on nuclear weapons? How will this authority enforce this initiative? In short, won’t this initiative abridge academic freedom? Secondly, I contend the United States is within its right to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons as a defense. I think our nation’s sovereign ty is imperiled if we renounce this right. I fear that without a modern nuUear force we will have to build an even bigger conventional army. Conscrip tion of young men is much more likely. How else would we defend ourselves? I don't think this is a very practical alternative, but I think it can happen. As long as the Kremlin wants to takeover the world and the West resists, there is an inherent threat of nuclear war. We must accept this fact or we invite In ternational Socialism, world government. World government — that's what fascism is pretty much about. We must live free or die. David Herman senior, telecommunications letters Comparison The homosexual activist lobby Is distorting their cause by comparing their efforts to those of the civil rights cam paign of the early 70s. Their cause doesn't even come close in characteristics to those racial minorities. For one thing, homosexual practices aren’t a factor deter mined by genetics. One is not born homosexual In the same way we are born either male or female or black or whtie. It’s their choice to practice such a lifestyle Oregon daily _ _ emerald Tt»* Oregon Dally Em«r«<) it pubilthad Monday through Friday #»capt during «««m *aa* and vacations, by tha Oragon Dally £ mar aid Publishing Co at tha untvaraity ol Oragon Eugana. OR. 07403 Tha E mar aid oparatas indapandantiy ol Iha Umvartity artlb officaa on tha third floor of Iha Erb Mamorlal Union and la » m#mbar of tha Attociaiad Rraaa Editor Managing Editor Nauru Editor Aeeietanl News Editor Editorial Page Editor Photo Editor Spoilt Editor Associate Sports Editor Entertainment Editor Night Editor Aitfrctitt Idltofi Higher Education Depart mania and Schools Student Government Features PoWiet Student ServicearCommunity Attain General •latt Advertiamg Manager Cieeeihed Advertising Prod or non Manager Controller Marry E si eve John Meaty Marian Green Corl Earnaid Joan Nyland Bob Baker Mike FUphngei Paul Pander Jonathan Stable Debbie Howlett Sandy Johnatone Frank Shaw Richard Burr Sean Meyers Michele Met esse Ateta Zak OarteoeGore Sally CM |at Victoria Koch Jean Ownbey Why is someone any more entitled to special civil rights protection for practicing a de viant lifestyle such as homosexuality any more than someone who has a preference for animals (beastiality)? Both are con sidered immoral by the majori ty of people. I see little dif ference between the two preferences in degree of ab normality, yet the same rhetoric employed to ra tionalize one (homosexuality) could easily be used to justify the other (beastiality) Many groups would like society to accept (and even ap prove) every practice and not judge anything as wrong. But just how desirable would such a society with no moral stan dards (amorality) be to live in — much less bring your children up in? Edward White sophomore, chemistry Python’s point Concerning Debbi Roberts’ obtuse review of Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life:" I wonder if Roberts fail ed to perceive the very essence of the idiomatic logic of the Python’s humor which is rooted in their Oxbridge studies of Kant and Kierkegaard. Monty Python is not just a silly comic amusement, but a touchstone of Western culture — this is serious stuff. Perhaps Roberts should ask herself if her repulsed reaction was in any way part of the Python’s intention. What Roberts was witnessing in "The Meaning of Life” was a satirical wit called “sarcasm” which depends upon having shock value on its target. In other words, Roberts, the reason you were so repulsed by this film is because you were the target; you were the Python’s intended victim. Anyone who sees Python films as all embracing hedonism is missing the point; their films are actually moral lessons. The film’s title offers as clue; "what is the meaning of life?” is the most basic philosophical question; a paradox of the ethical vs. the logical. It is the Pythonian view that over moral issues, no question of intellectual foun dation can properly arise — hence the anarchistic breakdown of plot — they get silly. But this reflects not only the preoccupation of the Pythons, but of ourselves. What philosophical problems do we already have in mind before we see a Python film? What is ac ceptable and what is not? Are they being sexist or are they exposing this human vice by holding it up to ridicule? What are the moral issues behind organ transplants and over-consumption (the man puking in the restaurant)? The Pythons use a sort of flippant objective correlative to get their points across, and to this, a corollary to San tayana's famous adage: those who are ignorant of the con text of ideas are destined to misunderstand them. Ralph McDaniel senior, architecture El Salvador I would tike to ask Ronald Reagan this: If he truly believes that we should not protect a government from, “the anger of its own people,” how can he in good cons cience support the govern ment of El Salvador? We have just over 30 days to respond to Pres. Reagan. One sentence is all it takes to let your representatives know how you feel about sending $110 million in military aid to El Salvador. A stamped postcard costs 13 cents. And there is a list of state officials and their ad dresses on the bulletin board at the University Station post office. Please take the time to write. If we stand up, we will be heard. Robin Kelley
