Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 18, 1983)
I opinion One gray slab in the red Like it or not Eugene has invested $18.5 million in the Hult Center for the Performing Arts — the gray downtown monolith currently running in the red. The Eugene City Council needs to bail the center out of its $250,000 deficit this year and its probable $313,000 deficit for the next fiscal year. The council should do this for the simple fact that too much has been invested to let the center deteriorate. Mayor Gus Keller has suggested that the city bail the center out with a loan, the suggestion we think is the most feasible — in the short run. This is not a long-term solution, however. In the long run, the city is going to have to come to grips with its champagne center on a beer budget. The public, the politicians, the promoters, and the press need to know if the center is a de facto bureau of Eugene or a quasi-private entity (sort of a municipalized industry) that should be forced to balance its own books. A question that hasn’t been answered regards the role of the Eugene Arts Foundation, the private organiza tion that handles endowments for local art groups. How far will it go toward covering the center’s operating costs? The taxpayers need to know why the estimated $125,000 to $250,000 deficit could be as much as $1.7 million by the end of fiscal 1984. Most of all, Eugeneans need to know what’s going to be done to prevent such a deficit. A special panel of representatives from the center, citizens, council members and the foundation should be formed to address these questions and come up with suggestions. A consistent long-term deficit will require raising the city’s tax levy, imposing additional taxes such as the restaurant tax or cutting other projects from the city budget to finance the center. Since the center is run independently of the city, it should be loaned, not given, the money to cover the deficit. Then it should pay off the loans as soon as possible. The loan would buy time for a professional manage ment audit to find out if the center could be run more effi ciently. It is obvious to those who attend performances that the slow box office lines and the makeshift conces sion stands could be more efficient. A loan would allow the city time to understand its role in running the center. Maybe a study will prove a need to finance the place out of the general budget. There are some obvious minor improvements that could make the center more profitable. The foundation, If it is truly beneficent, needs to in crease short-term investment returns and help with the deficit. The Hult Center should coordinate with the Eugene Symphony Orchestra, Eugene Bal<et, Eugene Opera and outside promoters to have consistent student and elderly discount prices. Better booking could avoid some sparsely attended performances. Three jazz acts in a row is poor planning. Rock and popular concerts would bring in more money. The citizens deserve to know if the center is being run welt, if it will respond to their entertainment demands and if it eventually will break even. The Hult Center has been a matter of civic pride. It continues to be an expensive experiment. To continue its public support it must leave its doors, along with its books — within reason — open to the community. i WELL, WE HAP 70 DO 'SOMETHING/ IthWMoui % Literary abuse Young outstanding Americans such as Dan Goulet shouldn’t be subjected to such literary abuse as that from Philip Mitchell. Mitchell obviously has no regard for human rights or he would have supported American interven tion in Vietnam. The only thing America did wrong in Vietnam was to withdraw support. A few hydrogen bombs could have shortened the conflict from a few years to a few days, saving the 50,(XX) American lives lost there due to pacifists who caused Congress to prolong the conflict. Now Vietnam is totally Communist. Com munism by nature has no regard for human rights. Mit chell is seriously disoriented if he believe* we violated the guerrillas rights. Look how many rights Vietnamese peo ple have now. As for Central America, the United States owes a humanitarian duty to protect human rights from Communist coercion or oppressive governments. Militant guer rillas in El Salvador seek to set up an oppressive government even worse than the present one. Sandanista guerrillas in Nicaragua stage public execu tions for opponents. Yet Mitchell still thinks that, in our denying these guerrillas the right to control govern ments, we are violating their 1 Oregon daily emerald Tha Oragon Dally fmtriW la publlahad Monday through F riday aacapt during anam wmk and vacations by ih« Oragon Dally Emarald Publishing Co . at l ha Univaraify of Of a win Fugnne, OR. 97403 Th# Emarald oparataa mdapandanlly of I ha Univaraify artfh offleaa on lha fhfrd ftoof of fha Erb Mamortal Union and la a mambar of fha Asaociatad Rraaa Naurs and Editorial HEUtl Otapfay Advarllslng and llualnaas AM 1712 Claaafffad AdvarHaing OCA 4143 Product ton AM 4341 Circulation AM 1611 Editor Managing Editor News Editor Aasiatant N«*> Editor Editorial Page Editor Photo Editor Sport* Editor Associate Sport* Editor Entertainment Editor Night Editor Aaaociaia Editor* Higher Education Department* and School* Student Government Feature* Politic* Student S*rviL**/Community Oenetai Stalt Advertising Manager Classified Advertising Production Manager Controller Harry E Steve John Mealy Marian Green Cort Fernald Joan Nyland Bob Baker Mike Rtplinger Paul Oanrei Jonathan Stegle Dana Claussen Sandy Johnstone Frank Shaw Richard Burr Sean Meyer* Michele Matassa Atela Zak Darlene Gore Salty Otiar Victoria Koch Jean Ownbey human rights. No, their human rights don’t include killing and terrorizing people and forcing Communism or oppressive governments on the masses. People deserve to be free no matter where they live, whether it is the United States, Vietnam, or El Salvador. If we can protect freedom, we have the duty to do so. Dan Goulet and I believe in human rights, not guerrilla or militant rights. Freedom doesn’t seem small minded or immoral to me. Philip Mitchell is just another confused young man. He real ly should look at his priorities. Brandon Shepard Moral terms Personally I am ambivalent about the ROTC’s policy toward homosexuals. Nevor theless, I am fascinated by the questions raised in the debate over this policy. I find it interesting that the whole debate has been cast in terms of "morality,” of what is "right’’ or "wrong” — terms which in their absolute sense are generally anathema to this campus. Furthermore, I notice that many of the people who are up in moral arms about this issue are the same ones who are quick to shout down anyone who denouces homosexuality with howls of, "Don’t impose your morality on us." Yet, these same people tell us that it is "immoral” to discriminate against homosexuals. Philosophy Pro fessor Cheyney Ryan appeals to our "sense of right.’’ Whoa! And the Emerald tells us that the University faculty shirked its moral responsibility by refusing to force the ROTC to comply with University affir mative action (Affirming what?) policies. Wow! Talk aoout “imposing morality." But my point is this: If this University is going to debate moral questions and assume a role of moral leader ship in society then we must ask ourselves, whose morality will it champion? God's or Man's? Will the University uphold the morality of the god ly or promote the morality of the immoral? And as we debate these questions we would be wise not to ignore what God has said about those who attempt to supplant His absolute moral standards with a rubber ruler: “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees...” and “Woe to those who call evil, good and good, evil" (The book of Isaiah). Tom Visoky graduate, Journalism Self-serving The arguments against the campus ROTC program by Cheyney Ryan, Mary Hotch kiss, and the tribe of "pro gressive” students who have been following this issue around have reached a n-iw high of self-serving hypocrisy. The attempt to boot ROTC off campus due to non compliance with affirmative action policies has nothing to do with any concern for homosexual students who wish to join ROTC. Instead, “progressive” members of the University community are simply trying to force their cer tain military morality on the rest of the University, in cluding homosexuals. If some other government program — say financial aid or welfare — was discriminating against homosexuals would protesters advocate killing these programs for University students? I hope not — such a policy serves neither the University at large nor its homosexual students. Court cases will hopefully remedy the present military prejudice soon. Equal rights for all is a goal we must achieve, but doing so on a Procrustean bed of thinly veiled hate for the military benefits no one but those students who want ROTC off campus and not homosexuals who at the present time can not participate in the program. Caring students? Bullshit. Robert Davis
