editorial
Debates faced
with problems
Sunday’s debate may not have been head-to-head as
Walter Mondale requested, but it was certainly worth wat
ching. It gave the country a chance to see Mondale and Pres.
Ronald Reagan speak spontaneously, without television cue
cards.
The result showed Reagan fumbling for words and look
ing confused, while Mondale appeared in control of his facts
and strong in his style. Yet, despite the debate’s apparent
success in providing more information about the candidates,
there were some serious behind-the-scenes problems.
It is incredible that after receiving a list of 100 profes
sional journalists, the candidates could not agree upon who
should serve on the question panel. They ended up choosing
only three journalists for the debate instead of four, which
was the number suggested by debate organizers.
Barbara Walters correctly stated in an interview Sunday
night that changes must be made in the debate format before
the candidates come together again. The League of Women
Voters, which is sponsoring the debates, expressed anger
and frustration over the process that allowed Mondale and
Reagan to be so picky about who would ask them questions.
While so far no changes in the debate format have been
announced, it is clear that the League of Women Voters will
try to change the rules that allowed the candidates to select
the question panel.
Several possibilites exist. The league could make a ran
dom, lottery-like drawing from the existing list of 100 jour
nalists. They also could form a new list and draw from that
one. Such a new debate format could solve the problem of
panel selection and perhaps give Americans a chance to see
a more one-on-one debate style.
Format isn’t the only problem with the debate process,
however. Reagan’s refusal to hold more than two debates
counters efforts to educate voters. Had he agreed to the six
debates that Mondale reguested there would be more time to
cover important issues. On Sunday, many domestic con
cerns — such as civil rights, labor, urban development and
the environment — were barely mentioned.
Not only would six debates give more time to cover
critical domestic and foreign policy issues, it also would
give Americans a chance to see Reagan as he really is: con
fused and unsure of important facts.
EMU lobby a good place
for protests and debates
With the coming of the Nov. 6 elections, political ten
sions at the University are on the increase. Last Thursday
when anti-war protesters staged a sit-in in front of the
Marine recruiting desk in the EMU lobby, tensions came to a
boiling point.
A Maranatha preacher, upset with the display of anti
militarism criticized those participating in the sit-in for be
ing ignorant of the important role the armed services have
played in protecting American freedoms. The protesters
answered with their opinion of the Marines and soon a
crowd gathered and shouting started.
Since then a number of people have criticized the anti
war protesters for obstructing the right of free speech on
campus. The protesters did not, however, threaten anyone’s
right to free speech and certainly not that of the Marines,
who were free to talk like everybody else in the lobby at the
time. In fact the protesters may have actually encouraged
free speech by bringing people with opposing views
together in such a lively and spontaneous debate about
American foreign policy.
What should never have happened, however, is the
semi-obstruction of the Marine table. By placing themselves
directly in front of the table the protesters were technically
blocking student access to the Marines.
It is not a question of free speech, it is a question of
courtesy and fairness. Since all students pay fees to the
University, it is wrong for some students to try and prevent
other students from going about their business.
When the anti-war protesters return today and tomor
row to the EMU lobby for another anti-military sit-in, let it
be away from the Marine table. Instead, the focus should be
on getting students with differing views to openly debate the
issues at hand. This will be a challenge for everyone involv
ed.
Page 2
letters
Moral laws?
Some of your recent cor
respondents seem to be voting
for the present administration
out of moral outrage. Perhaps a
word or two in favor of tolera
tion would be in order.
It really sn’t necessary, for
example, to choose between the
victim and the criminal. Let us
do all we can for the former, but
the more we can do for the latter
in terms of encouraging his
reintegration into society (like
encouraging him to vofe), may
well be the more we do to en
sure that there will not be future
victims.
Likewise, when we insist that
law enforcement agencies are
themselves subject to the law,
that the rights of the accused
must be observed, we do not
deny the law: we affirm it.
America is not a country where
anyone should be subject to a
knock on the door in the night.
Finally, a related issue: When
we refuse social services,
economic, and educational op
portunities to minorities, to the
old, the ill, the unemployed,
and the poor, we do not affirm
the American dream; we deny
it.
It is certainly possible to
forget the community, to frac
ture and simplify one’s view of
society to the point where one
might overlook the actions of
this administration and vote out
of a partially conceived self
interest. But the self
righteousness is really out of
place.
Michael McGuire
Eugene
Go Mondale!
What a Match! The can
didates finally had the chance
to “put on the gloves.” There
were certainly no knock-outs,
according to a senior aid in the
Reagan camp. There were 12 or
14 Reagan supporters together
in the same room and they all
agreed that the president looked
good.
They were all very pleased. 1
find that hard to believe. The
candidates were congenial,
Fritz was even pretty funny.
The president fumbled around a
bit but he’s a real nice guy so we
can allow him a little more
slack. He also avoided the
issues, but what the hell?
Barbara Walters sure confus
ed the President when she
almost passed up his rebuttal.
He didn’t seem to mind though
and just mixed it in with his
closing statement. Alas, he real
ly didn’t look very sharp.
Ronald Reagan is truly in
capable of running this country.
He's on a crusade. If we had a
king I would support him for
the job, but as a figurehead on
ly. He’s probably a very nice
guy, just misdirected.
Maybe there were no knock
outs, I guess those Reagan folks
must know more than me. But
I’m convinced that if the
American people become in
terested in and concerned with
this election, then Walter Mon
dale and Geraldine Ferraro will
win regardless of what the
odds-makers have to say.
I urge the students of this
university to watch the debates
and get involved!
Randall Harbour
Eugene
Freedom issue
There they go again! On Oct.
4 a group of reactionaries
established chaos in the main
lobby of the EMU when they
obstructed the rights of Marine
recruiters to recruit students on
the campus.
The kooks are at their old
game of protesting against the
military. There are some groups
on campus who have some
legitimate concerns about the
military, but I hope they don't
associate themselves with these
extremists.
These zealots were trying to
restrict the freedom of choice of
students who believe in a alter
nate life style. It is hard to
believe that people who sup
posedly believe strongly in
minority rights and freedom of
choice would then restrict the
rights of others to choose the
military.
Any liberal-minded person
who believes strongly against
the military would hold their
nose but allow others their right
to choose as they wish without
interference.The University is a
learning community where
diverse thought exists. It is not a
place to restrict the freedom of
any group including the
military.
It looks like these fanatics are
trying to dictate according to
their own beliefs what groups
can and cannot exist on our
campus. I feel that these actions
are highly improper. It is an
outrage that such a philosophy
can fester and grow in a climate
of free thought and learning.
Ron Munion
Political Science
emerald
The Oregon Dally Emerald Is published Monday
through Friday except during exam week and vacations
by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co., at the
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403.
The Emerald operates independently of the Universi
ty with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial
Union and is a member of the Associated Press.
Ad Sales: David Wood, Marcia Leonard, Tim Clevenger,
Laura Buckley, Roberta Oliver, Laurie Noble, Jennifer
Fox.
Production: David Bryant, Sharia Cassidy, Kelly Cornyn,
John Dorsey, Storml Dykes, Julie Freeman, Kathy
Gallagher, Dean Guernsey, Susan Hawkins, Kirk Hlrota,
Karin McKercher, Laurl Neely, Kelly Neff, Curt Penrod,
Tamye Riggs, Michele Ross, Peg Solonlka, Tim Swill
inger, Colleen Tremaine, Eileen Tremaine, Hank Trotter.
General Staff
Advertising Director
Production Manager
Classified Advertising
Controller
Rose Anne Raymond
Jean Ownbey
Susan Thelen
Russell Steele
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
News Editor
Managing Editor
Photo Editor
Sports Editor
Sidelines Editor
Entertainment Editor
Assistant Entertainment Editor
Night Editor
Associate Editors
Administration
Politics
ASUO
Student Activities
Features
Michele Matassa
Costas Christ
Michael Kulaga
Mike Sims
Michael Clapp
Brent De La Paz
Sheila Landry
Kim Carlson
Mike Duncan
Sheila Landry
Michael Doke
Paul Ertelt
Julie Shlppen
Jolayne Houtz
Lori Stelnhauer
Reporters: Sean Axmakbr, Shannon Kelly, Allan Lazo, Lori
Stephens.
News and Editorial 686-5511
Display Advertising and Business 686-3712
Classified Advertising 686-4343
Production 686-4381
Circulation 686-5511
Wednesday, October 10, 1984