<%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