opinion
Housing committee
acting suspiciously
There’s something — or perhaps someone — rotten in the
EMU Board's Housing Committee.
The committee's recent activity regarding Student Projects
Inc., (Footnotes), is a "smokescreen" to disguise an attack on
OSPIRG. If we may mix our metaphors, the "smokescreen"
smells a little rotten.
The "smokescreen" is wholly transparent. Dan Cohen, a
Board member, and Marc Spence, an incidental fee committee
member, seem to be acting according to their own political
views.
Cohen, Spence and other members of the committee ap
pear to be acting capriciously, in a prejudicial manner and using
their positions to help friends.
The question of Footnotes paying rent came up during a
Board meeting at which the question of OSPIRG paying rent was
originally broached.
Footnotes, as with a number of other groups located in the
EMU, came up as part of the discussion.
There are some curious elements regarding the procedure
used to put the OSPIRG rental question on the Housing Com
mittee's agenda.
First, Cohen put the item on the agenda without prior notice
or discussion. Many of the committee members were surprised
the OSPIRG rental question came up. They were unprepared to
even discuss the matter.
However, a couple of committee members were a little too
ready to address the OSPIRG rental question, and a little too
eager to assign rent to the research group.
Other committee members have characterized these com
mittee members' actions as "ram-rodding."
A last minute request to postpone the question prevented
any hasty action.
The feeling among many people in the committee, and the
ASUO, is the OSPIRG rental question was a direct result of the
Constitutional Court's recent case against the research group.
In fact, it's another avenue of attack by almost the same peo
ple. Some members of the committee are merely working in the
interests of the PIRG-busters.
Cohen admitted two University students asked him to deter
mine OSPiRG's rental status. Apparently, bad news travels in
pairs.
TFiereare three criteria for space being provided in the EMU.
A group must be either a registered or recognized program
under the auspices of the ASUO, the EMU, or be a retailer.
SEARCH, or ESCAPE are examples of ASUO programs — pro
grams that aren't, under present guidelines, required to pay
rent. Anderson's, Baskin Robbins and Sooter's are examples of
retailers who pay full rent.
The committee does need to define a more conclusive rental
policy for groups using EMU space, but the policy should be
written before groups are charged rent or evicted.
OSPIRC and Footnotes should not pay rent because they are
ASUO programs. Also, OSPIRC is almost exclusively staffed by
student volunteers.
Footnotes was an ASUO program until a reorganization in
1974. Their status hasn't been updated. Which means they
haven't cemented or severed ties with the ASUO.
As for the charge that some committee members appear to
be working in the interests of their friends, rather than in the in
terests of the EMU Board, one has only to examine the commit
tee's actions regarding the Oregon Commentator
Committee members say Cohen acted suspiciously in the
handling of the Commentator’s request for office space in the
EMU.
The Commentator became a recognized group on a Monday
and were on the Housing Committee's agenda by Wednesday of
that week. Cohen personally put the item on the agenda.
There are 200 recognized or registered groups on campus,
only 40 of which are granted space in the EMU. Many of the
groups have been waiting to meet with the committee since spr
ing. Why has the Commentator had better luck with the
committee?
The committee's actions become even more suspicious
regarding the timing of the Commentator's status as a recogniz
ed or registered group. Cohen claims he was informed of the
Commentator verbally by its editor as early as August.
The EMU Board policy states a group must "apply” to be a
recognized or registered group.The key word is "apply." It ap
pears a casual conversation with a committee member is suffi
cient application in this instance.
With this latest attack on OSPIRC (and Footnotes) the com
mittee has become a political weapon wielded by specific com
mittee members to achieve their own personal political goals
and the goals of their group.
The EMU rent question is an obvious attack on OSPIRC by
the same group that took them before the Constitutional Court.
What is deplorable is that now members of an important com
mittee are doing the PIRC-busters' bidding.
But more deplorable than this politicking, certain committee
members are abusing their positions to bolster the fortunes of
their friends.
CS - js. •
ip ' #'
bur EM0U6M Of AU, THIS SERIOUSNESS, LANES AMD (SMS — HERE ME IS, MAKING HIS BlG AMOONpoNW
RIGHT HERE ONOUR STAGE LETS GIVE HIM A &IG HAND,.. HEEEERES JESSE//
Grenada: seven points to ponder
Seven administration myths about the war in
Grenada: Although the war is only two weeks old,
the credibility gap is already wide open.
1) Pres. Ronald Reagan claimed that he started
planning an invasion only after receiving a request
from the Organization of Eastern Carribean States
(OECS) on Oct. 22. However, Prime Minister Tom
Adams of Barbados admitted that the U.S. approach
ed Barbados on Oct. 15 and proposed an invasion. It
was therefore a U.S. initiative; the OECS countries
just went along as window-dressing.
comments
john farley
2) Reagan claimed that the invasion was
necessary to evacuate the American medical
students. In fact, four planes left Grenada the day
before the invasion. Thus, the evacuation had already
begun before the invasion started. Reagan, eager for
an excuse, hurried to attack before the evacuation ef
fort succeeded.
3) Reagan claimed that the longer runway that
Grenada was building with the help of Cuban
laborers was for military use, because Grenada
doesn't have an air force. Grenada said it was for
tourism. Nation magazine (April 13) revealed the
length of the new airport runway at Grenada was
comparable to that of other countries of similar size
and population. Aruba and St. Lucia have runways
about the same size as Grenada's; and Antigua, Bar
bados, and Curacao have significantly longer run
ways. None of these other countries has an air force,
either.
The excavation for the airport was being done by
the Layne Dredge* Company of Florida, and the Euro
pean Economic Community had contributed $16
million towards construction of the airport. A British
lirm, Plessy Ariports, was supplying the radar equip
ment. The Sunday Express (London) reported that the
mood in official British circles was one of "furious in
credulity" over the Reagan administration's claims
that the airport "was all part of a Communist plot."
4) Phantom missile bunkers and a planted story;
On Oct. 28, a UPI dispatch from the Detriot Free
Press, quoting a "Pentagon official," reported that
two weeks before the invasion, an American spy on
Grenada had seen and photographed a Soviet missile
bunker only 800 feet form the Point Salines airport.
Reporters covering the airport area haven't found
them. If the missile bunkers really existed, why
weren't they shown to the reporters? The only logical
answer is that the bunkers never existed.
5) Reagan claimed that he was restoring
democracy to Grenada. While real power rests in the
r
hands of Reagan and the Pentagon, the front man is
Sir Paul Scoon, the British-appointed Governor
general. Reagan has restored colonialism, not
democracy.
6) Reagan claimed that Cuba was behind the
coup against Maurice Bishop. This claim makes no
sense at all, because Bishop was a very strong ally of
Cuba. It was very much in the interest of Cuba to see
Maurice Bishop alive and in office.
7) Government censorship: Reagan deliberately
barred reporters from Grenada in order to make the
"official" version of events the only version available.
The official excuse for censorship is protection of the
lives of reporters. Yet, reporters covered both World
Wars and the Korean and Vietnam wars at their own
risk. Obviously, this is not Reagan's real reason for
censorship. The real reason is that the public wjll not
support the invasion if the reporters are present. The
"official" film released in the first week did not show
any dead or wounded people. Evidently, Reagan is
trying to minimize public awareness of the human
cost of his polit y. Support for aggression is easier to
mobilize in the absence of unpleasant facts and
unpleasant questions.
This is just a partial list of the internal contradic
tions in the Reagan administration's cover story as it
shifts and squirms. The almost daily changes of the
administration's cover story is evidence that no
single cover story is defensible. Reagan is presenting
a moving target.
So much for Reagan's lies. Now the hard truth:
The real purpose of the invasion is that Reagan wants
to fight a short, successful war in order to whip up a
militarisitc fervor and improve his reelection
chances. A brief, successful war in the Falklands got
Maggie Thatcher reelected in Britain, despite the col
ossal failure of her economic policy (the unemploy
ment rate more than doubled during her first term).
Reagan wants a short war in order to win before an
anti-war movement has time to develop. This strategy
requires the U.S., the most powerful country on
earth, to attack a small, weak, virtually defenseless
country. Grenada, the smallest nation in the Western
Hemisphere, has no air force and no navy. It is not a
lair fight. It is like a 260 pound football player beating
up a toddler. It is a dirty, disgusting, disgraceful little
war.
Of course, there are those who root for the foot
ball player. Reagan hopes to overcome the war
weariness of the American public (the "Vietnam syn
drome"); he hopes that a militarisitc attitude of swag
gering and bullying becomes the national mood. If
Reagan's war of aggression against Grenada suc
ceeds politically, the next logical step will be an inva
sion of Nicaragua. And after that? Cuba?
lohn Farley is an assistant professor of physics
and a member of Faculty Against Intervention in Cen
tral America.
Oregon daily _ .
emerald
The Oregon Daily (merald is published Monday through Fri
day etc ept during nam week and vacations, by the Oregon Daily
tmerald Publishing Co., at the University ol Oregon, Eugene. OR.
*17401
I he Emerald operates independently ol the University with
offices on the third floor ol the Erb Memorial Union and is a
member of the Assoc laled Press.
News and Editorial • Ub-SSII
Display Advertising and Business bate 3712
Classsilied Advertising bBb-4343
Production bHts-4 )81
Circulation fsSfeSSII
Editor
Managing Editor
News Editor
Assistant News Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Photo Editor
Sports Editor
Sidelines Editor
Entertainment Editor
Assistant Entertainment Editor
Night Editor
Associate Editors
Higher Education
Departments and ScEtools
Student Government
features
Politic s
G< immunity
General Staff
Advertising Manager
Classified Advertising
Production Manager
Controller
Debbie Howlett
Sandy lohnstone
Frank Shaw
Brenda Thornton
Cort Fernald
Dave Kao
Doug Levy
|ohn Healy
Angela Allen Morgan
Kim Carlson
Frank Shaw
Doug Nash
Melissa Martin
Jim Moore
Joan Herman
Brixiks Darelt
Mr hele Matassa
Darlene Gore
Sally Oljar
Victoria Koch
Jean Ownbey