I
Financial aid office
not taking sides
We sympathize with the “damned if they do — damned
if they don’t" position of the University’s financial aid office
over enforcement of the Solomon amendment.
The Solomon amendment forbids disbursement of
financial aid to students who have not registered for the
draft. The law, which went into effect July 1, requires draft
age students to be registered for the draft or declare exemp
tion if applying for federal financial aid in fall term.
Ed Vignoul, University Financial aid director, said that
the University doesn’t have a choice in the matter. The
University receives $22 million in financial aid that would be
jeopardized without their office’s proper compliance with the
law.
Draft registration, like the draft itself, is one of those
issues hung with the trappings of conscience and morality.
Vignoul has done a commendable job keeping his office
above the furor of debate for or against draft registration.
Students who are opposed to draft registration might
remember that the financial aid office has opted to guarantee
the availably of financial aid to students instead of taking
sides in the issue. Don’t grumble at the financial aid workers
when you are given the compliance form to sign — they
didn’t advocate the law.
The law has been buffeted about the courts since it was
passed last year. A test case filed by the ACLU in District
Court in Minnesota last October issued an injunction against
the law. However, in June the Supreme Court stayed the in
junction. What this implies is the case against the law is on
hold — though the enforcement of the law is being pursued.
The ACLU considers the rule "a serious abridgement of
constitutional rights” — the right forbidding self
incrimination (the fifth amendment) and the right barring
criminal punishment without benefit of trial (bill of attainer).
They are absolutely right. But how many times have we seen
the sharp edge of constitutional rights dulled by governmen
tal expediency?
Meanwhile, students, if only to further’their possibilities
through higher education, will have to grit their teeth and ’’X’’
the compliance statement.
opinion
More support services
needed for vagrants
The city of Eugene has initiated a Vagrancy Task Force
to handle transients that regularly pass through town.
We think the task force is a good idea, but we advise the
venerable City Council to be cautious.
The problem of vagrancy is acute in the West University
area. An influx of vagrants on 13th Avenue is common during
spring and summer. In fact, some students seem able to
predict the weather in Seattle or California by the number of
vagrants drinking in the park on 14th Avenue.
The attack on vagrants will be two pronged, using ex
isting support services and law enforcement. The law en
forcement efforts will be concerned with use of abandoned
buildings by vagrants and drinking in city parks. The par
ticulars of the support services effort have yet to be outlined.
Support services should be the most important aspect
of the city’s vagrancy program. Yet, it seems the city’s ap
proach is nothing new and will rely on the police to round up
the bums, throw them in jail for the night and let them out in
the morning.
The ACLU Is objecting to the program because they say
it gives “too much discretion” to the police to pick up ‘peo
ple who look scruffy.” That’s more than likely true — the
police might use the charge of vagrancy as a catch-all or a
means of harassment.
The city should emphasize its participation in programs
such as the Eugene Mission, Salvation Army, and the White
Bird Clinic. The Eugene Mission is an effective organization
helping vagrants turn their lives around. However, the mis
sion is located on West 1st Avenue a long way from the areas
that vagrants congregate. The city might consider setting up
outreach houses in the trouble areas.
WE ItttNKTHEE RR THE GIFTS OF UN BOUNTIFUL herpes and THINE blessed AIDS, 0, LORD..,
NOW SEND US SOMETHING TOR ALL THE OTHER WIERDOS.'
debbie howlett
editor’s note
Frankly I've been baffled as
to why some student govern
ment officials aren’t a bit more
outraged over what I’ve
capriciously tagged “Food
Gate.’’
A little more than a week
ago I found myself discussing
an editorial I wrote which
chastised student leaders who
were ’’tight-lipped” about
alleged violations at the Food
Op, a non-profit collective that
took the meaning of work
study literally.
The semi-private conversa
tion I had with ASUO Vice
Pres. Kevin Kouns and ASUO
Publications Director, Mary
Hope started out as a discus
sion of the ASUO’s involve
ment in “Food-Gate." We then
meandered to a discussion of
the ethics of bending the law.
Strangely enough, we even
talked about the ethics’ of
breaking the law.
And we weren't talking civil
disobedience.
Kouns said the Food-Op In
cident occurred, in part,
because of the way the time
sheets are printed (they don’t
allow a student to record more
than one block of time in a
given day). Further, Kouns
said, there was no criminal in
tent in the recording of work
hours, ergo there is no
criminal liability.
I disagreed. Kouns tried to
sway me. It was only bending
an administrative rule, he said.
Hope concurred
Without the knowledge of
whether it was a federal of
fense or an administrative
rule, I asked Kouns and Hope
if it were not criminal, wasn't
“Food-Gate" just a bit im
moral. That got a lukewarm
"maybe .’’
We then discussed the
morality of bending rules to
iraqan daily
emerald
The sumirnf edition of the Oregon Daily Emerald is publish
ed Tuesdays sod Thursdays «*cept during e*am «e«k and
vacations by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co #i the
University of Oregon Eugene tregem. 9/40.1
The Emerald operates independently of the University with
offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial Union and is a
member of the Associated Press
Meets and Editorial MB 111 1
Display Advertising and Business ABA 1/1?
Classified Advertising AM 4141
Production MB41B1
Circulation BAB t$11
Editor
Managing Editor/New* Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Photo Editor
Aaaoclata Editor*
Highar Edueati i/Depanmeni* and School*
Stodant Government
Politic* Editor
Community EditnriHigher Education
Night Editor
Oerter*l Stall
Advarii»ing Managar
Cla**itiad Advancing
Production Managar
Control t*r
Debbie Ho* let t
Sandy John*lona
Cort Eernald
Mar* Pynas
Joan Merman
Jim Moore
Brook* Derail
Michele Matasaa
Cort Fernald
Darlene Gore
Salty Otiar
Victoria Koch
Jean Ownbay
tap the fed's vast pot of public
money. We argued whether a
few thousand dollars would
ever be missed by the federal
government. Without coming
to a conclusion, we changed
the subject — sort of.
We talked about a rumour
I’d heard — that the Univer
sity’s administrators were in a
heavy sweat over “Food-Gate”
because they were afraid an
audit would show the Universi
ty receiving more federal work
study money than they ought
to be receiving (administrators
adamantly deny this is the
case).
Hope said she’d heard the
same thing
We circled back to the argu
ment of the morality of taking
more than one's fair share
from so large an entity. We us
ed the University's rumoured
excess as a point of
discussion.
Hope’s rationalization for
"bending the rules” when it
comes to squeezing the fed’s
pocketbook, is a time-worn
cliche. She said the govern
ment doesn’t allow the com
mon person to be completely
honest because honesty
usually nets J.Q. Public less
money. Kouns and Hope cited
food stamps as an example.
Nobody, according to
Kouns, separates and marks
fcod-stamp-purchased food
from, say, a house-mate's non
food-stamp-purchased food,
even though it's required by
federal law. If the government
asks though, Hope said, you
tell them you're doing exactly
what you're not doing. If you
told the truth, you wouldn't get
as many food stamps, Kouns
said.
Hope said that if the Univer
sity were indeed getting more
than its share of work-study
money, ‘‘so what.” The ASUO
wouldn't say anything about it
because surplus funds benefit
University students. Walking
up to the feds and saying
"here, the University has too
much of your money, take
some back,” is misrepresen
ting the students at the Univer
sity, she said.
We argued over how
students would wanted to be
represented, monetarily or
morally.
It is interesting that what
comes to light in the news
pages of this paper — the
comments that are ‘for the
record’ — have a distinctly
different sound than what is
said “off the record." This
conversation was an in
teresting, sometimes heated,
exchange. It was not explicitly
“for the record,” yet it was
never said to be “off the
record.”
I was privvy to a couple of
student leader’s thoughts on
how they dealt with the federal
government. If the Food-Op
weren’t so entrenched in what
appears to be federal viola
tions, those comments might
not have made these pages.
But given the involvement of
the ASUO in this incident
(whether the ASUO should be
involved or not), which carries
implications that the Food-Op
defrauded the federal govern
ment, Kouns and Hope’s com
ments seem highly newswor
thy, and highly interesting
Hope and Kouns caught me
with my pencil poised. Since
they did not say their com
ments were "off the record,” I
feel compelled to record them.
My mind guides my pencil
to write that both Kouns and
Hope's jugular veins are popp
ing in an effort to restrain
themselves from bluntly say
ing "Fuck the Feds.”
And by now you might’ve
guessed that both Kouns and
Hope may want to say nearly
the same thing to me. Maybe
they do, I’m not sure.
Hope did surmise that I was
crusading on a white horse,
that my seemingly pious posi
tion was only because this
type of news would make a
name for myself, my staff and
my paper.
i felt that was a fair com
ment, and to an extent, she’s
right.
Exposing impropriety at the
University’s Food-Op, and
editorializing about the shame
of it all isn’t going to land any
one a job with the Washington
Post. The Emerald, and Jim
Moore, the associate editor
covering the ASUO, may earn a
modicum of respect for their
integrity, and possibly a few
laurels for some hard work,
but not much more is likely to
come of it.
It also struck me that, in a
simplistic way, a newspaper
gains admiration and respect,
especially from its audience,
by telling the truth.
So I smiled at Hope. “You
bet,” I answered with as much
cockiness as I could muster.
Hope smiled too, but I’m
fairly certain we weren’t mak
ing the same connection.