opinion
A round of congrats
to Hotchkiss, IFC
A hearty round of congratulations are in order tor ASUO
Pres. Mary Hotchkiss, the Incidental Fee Committee and the
Eugene law firm of Goldstein and Campbell, all of whom are in
volved in the South Africa divestiture case against the State
Board of Higher Education.
The dedication and tenacity of these1 people and groups is
admirable. The issue of the State Board's investment in South
Africa would have been forgotten and hence, unresolved.
Hotchkiss' administration is to be commended for its renew
ed vigor in pursuing the divestiture case. Previous ASUO ad
ministration all but ignored the ongoing case.
The IFC deserves contratulations for hearing Hotchkiss
testimony in favor of continued financial support to the law firm
handling the case. The IFC, in years before, voted $1,000 toward
fees and costs in the case. By a unanimous vote the IFC voted
$1,500 for legal fees and $500 to the law firm to pursue the case.
The divestiture suit won initial victories, but then became
bogged down in a protracted legal struggle. That's where the
suit lies, mired in litigational swamps. The IFC support through
funding could pull the suit out of the bogs.
The most deserving of kudos is the law firm of James Camp
bell and Michael Goldstein. These two attorneys have pursued
the divestitutre case since the beginning without great regard
toward fees or prestige.
Attorneys with a social consciousness are rare and deserving
of congratulations. Goldstein and Campbell believe the ASUO's
divestiture case is important not so much as cause for the State
Board to withdraw its investments in the government of South
Africa (with its policy of aparthied), but for the precedent it will
set for other states.
The $2,0(K) the IFC agreed to fund Campbell and Goldstein is
really not even close to the amount of out-of-pocket money and
time the law firm has already devoted to the case. The firm's
research and expense to bring the case to trial far outweigh the
IFC stipend.
The divestiture case is six years old. Six years of initial vic
tories and then a legal war of attrition. Perhaps the combined ef
forts of a vigorous ASUO, a supportive IFC and a pair of socially
responsible lawyers will bring a resolution of the case and end
the State Board's investment in — and tacit support of — the
racist and militaristic government of South Africa.
letters
Perpetuation
The Emerald headline "Campus
'Candy Store' Creates Crisis" in
the Nov. 16 edition is an in
furiating example of the pervasive
"blaming the victim" con
sciousness which has contributed
to the perpetration of violent at
tacks on women. By accepting the
rapists' classification of the female
population of a campus as a "can
dy store," the Emerald has, in ef
fect, sanctioned that classification.
The article emphasized the
woman's responsilbility and
culpability in rape rather than put
ting the blame where it belongs —
on the rapist.
Certainly women should take
measures to protect themselves.
However, as long as women are
encouraged to view themselves as
victims, so will the rapists.
Women are not "candy." They
are individuals possessing human
dignity. The Emerald ignores this
fact by printing the rudely offen
sive comic "Oliver," thus com
placently accepting the objec
tification of women. The column
last week by the student who had
so much trouble getting a date
with a "girl" makes one wonder if
perhaps he viewed females over
the age of 18 as women, he might
have better luck.
It is not the "candy store," the
fact that women walk and breathe
on the campus, that creates the
crisis. It is the continued objec
tification and exploitation of
women by society; it is the pro
pagated perception of women as
victims by the method of repor
ting rapes; finally it is the
psychologically disturbed and
dangerous criminal who brutally
attacks women in a violent, rather
than sexual, actor rape who is the
creator of the crisis.
A campus paper at a supposedly
progressive, affirmative action,
equal opportunity University
should take the first step in realiz
ing its responsibility in portraying
violent crimes against women in
their proper light.
Terry Teitetbtum
graduate, politica/ science
Oregon daily . _
emerald
The Oregon Daily fmnild is published Monday through Fri
day enrepI during rum wni and vacations, by I hr Oregon Daily
fmerald Publishing Co , at thr University of Oregon, f ugme Oft
*7»1
Thr fmrrald operates independently ol thr University with
offices on thr third door of the Irb Memorial Union and is a
member of the Associated Press
Mews and fdMonaf Mb-lftt
Otapfay Advert rung and Iwltni US 1712
Cleswfud Advertising UMM)
Prndurttan MMMI
Ore Idahow Mh-SSIl
Page 2
idilor
Managing Idilor
Nn« idllor
Annum N«*» idilor
I diional Page idilor
Photo idilor
spom idilor
Sideline* tdilor
i nlerlammeni idilor
Assistant tnlerlammeni tdilor
Might idilor
Ataor UK Iddnn
Higher (dixalion
Depart menu and Schools
Slodenl Covernmenl
feature*
PuiUK I
Commonly
General Sled
Advertising Manager
( las sc lied Advertising
Production Manager
( ontroMer
Debbie Howlett
Sandy (ohnslone
trank Shaw
Brenda Thornlon
Cod Fernald
Dave Kao
Doug levy
|ohn Mealy
Angela Allen Morgan
Kim Carlson
Cort Fernald
Doug Nash
Melissa Marlin
lim Moore
loan Herman
Brooks Dare!I
Mk hele Matassa
Darlene Gore
Sally OI|ar
Victoria Koch
lean Ownbey
Kicking into a new awareness
Justifications for disillusion and cynicism grow
like weeds in history. They are the big events that
shock millions of little Adams and Eves, some kicking
and screaming, into an undesired, new awareness.
reporter's notebook
brooks dareff
Yet the end of innocence is very much a private
affair, something of often visceral immediacy. As
such, individuals paint their scarlet letters on the
events closest to them: the trench and chemical war
fare of World War I, Hiroshima, or Watergate, to
name a few.
The death of John Kennedy exactly 20 years ago
was the symbol of the loss of innocence for at least
one generation, all the more so because in retrospect
it anticipated in such quick succession the other rip
ping asunder events of the 1960s and '70s. The race
riots, Vietnam, the assassinations of Martin Luther
King and Robert Kennedy, Watergate, assassination
attempts on two presidents, a failing economy, the
Iran crisis, — all led the silent majority into a deepen
ing pit of disillusion about the country's spiritual,
philosophical and economic well being. And the
death of John Kennedy seemed to start all that.
Some people carried the symbol idea to religious
or cosmic extremes. Independent of other historical
forces, the violence and upheaval of the 1960s were a
punishment for what we, in Dallas at 12:30 p.m., Nov.
22, 1963, had done to John Kennedy.
There were, of course tremendous historical
forces rumbling beneath the surface, far bigger than
Kennedy himself, waiting to explode. Movements of
national self-determination rocked the country from
without, and of racial, sexual and economic equality
from within.
But symbols are something to hang your hat on,
and to millions of Americans, on the day john Ken
nedy was killed a dark, foul cloud blighted this coun
try, and with it, its confidence and optimism.
Aside from the fact that he was president, much
of the symbolic power of Kennedy's death came from
the man himself. In January, 1963, Kennedy's ap
proval rate, according to pollsters, was well over 70
percent.
As University Political Science Prof. James
Klonoski, by his own description a "Humphrey
man," said, Kennedy's lofty, "new frontier" rhetoric
gushed an idealism which, whether real or affected,
stylish or substantive, "infected the country."
And many of his programs bore out that
idealism.
Through the Peace Corps and the Alliance for
Progress, the nation would help the third world to
help itself. (This is not to mention that Kennedy was
enamoured with counter-insurgency and originated
the Green Berets.) Through the space program we
would conquer the very heavens.
Kennedy nearly oozed youthful buoyancy and
optimism. And he was, literally young.
Young people identified with Kennedy, just 43
when he was elected, in a way its probably hard to
understand today. He played touch football, went
sailing, had a young, beautiful wife.
"He captured the fancy of America's youth," says
Klonoski.
Not long after Kennedy's death, then assistant
secretary of labor Daniel Moynihan, offered a
hopeful vision of the future, yet still seemed to close
the door on his generation's innocence.
"We'll laugh again," he said. "It's just that we ll
never be young again."
Brooks Dareff is the Emerald's politics editor.
letters
It itself
Stuart Shaw needs to know that
he doesn't have the luxury of
popular Christian consent in
regards to his liberal theological
viewpoint. An orthodox Christian,
and in fact anyone who takes the
Bilble at face value, realizes that
whether or not he or she may
agree, it itself claims absolute
authority (Psalm 119:160, Proverbs
30:5-6). To rely on it to suggest that
there is no such absolute is con
tradictory. It doesn't take a
theologian to perceive the irony
that "If Cod doesn't care and
chooses to ignore ya, tell it to the
people of Sodom and Gomorrah."
There is a right, and a* wrong.
There is an absolute truth
port rayed.
Shaw's muddled thinking even
conflicts with the basic tenets of
philosophy, ethics, logic, and
especially theology. The Bible
forces one to choose it or abor
tion. Both cannot be held affir
matively. Shaw, obviously due to
his lack of affinity with the text,
has succumbed to pluralistic
thought and thus convenience is
the law he keeps. Shaw accurately
goes to the basis of his heresy
when he debunks the authority of
the Bible. If it's not authoritative,
then it is permeated with lies; for
it does claim absoluteness. I
rather think that Shaw is the one
who is lying, decieved, and
deceiving.
Dean Hanley
Refreshing
In the face of such an emo
tionally charged issue as abortion,
it was refreshing to read Stuart
Shaw's thoughtful, even
tempered and notably
humanitarian defense of freedom
of choice. His assertion that the
Bible cannot be used to turn abor
tion into a black and white issue
ties in nicely with his proposition
that the freedom of choice dictum
is in response to our recognition
that there are few if any absolutes.
I was surprised, though, that a
campus minister would neglect
mentioning conscience in suppor
ting his stand, particularly since
conscience is possibly the least
absolute and tangible aspect of
our personalities.
Shaw's pro-choice argument is
smooth and convincing. Yet I
know of equally sound pro-life
counter-rationale. Any attempt to
resolve the abortion issue by
dialectic seems doomed; were
logic the only criterion on which
to base my decision, it would fluc
tuate depending on my mood. But
abortion is a moral issue, which
implies conscience, not cold logic.
Whether religious or not, each of
us has gut feelings about what is
right and wrong. And I suspect
most of us inherently feel that
snuffing out a fetus' life, human or
not, is not right.
fohn Gibbons
law
No surprise
Being grabbed by a stranger and
dragged down the. street is
physical violence. Being pushed
to the ground is physical violence.
Rape is physical violence.
I'm surprised to learn that the
police department does not con
sider a man maliciously grabbing
a woman to be a violent act. On
second thought, no, I'm not
surprised.
Shasta Hatter
English
MnuAmluir 7*)