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