(For jazz that is
'uncommonly good,'
See Page 7_
Oregon daily
emerald
Monday, May 13, 1985
Eugene. Oregon
Volume 86, Number 152
Protesters brave rain
at anti-apartheid rally
.
By Scott McFetridge
Of the Emerald
It was rain instead of police that confronted South
African apartheid protesters during a two-hour rally on the
Capitol’s steps in Salem on Friday morning.
About 175 people, most of whom were from the Univer
sity, braved the frequent showers that accompanied the
speakers and shouted their approval for divestment of state
funds in companies doing business in South Africa.
“We’re not afraid of the rain, we’re afraid of injustice in
South Africa,” said Costas Christ, the opening speaker of the
rally. “President Ronald Reagan calls the South African
government a friend and ally of the United States, but they
don’t deserve the friendship of our country or our support.”
Christ's statements were echoed by Rep. Margaret Carter,
D-Portland. There are 26 million blacks and mixed
"colored,” mostly of Asian descent, who are being denied
civil rights in South Africa, Carter said.
"Can Oregon do anything alone? No,” she said. “You
are part of the vanguard for a people with no voice.”
Carter is the chief sponsor of House Bill 2001, which
would force divestment of state funds connected to South
Africa. An amended version of the bill was approved by the
House Human Resources Committee on Friday.
Reps. Ron Eachus, D-Eugene, Mike Burton, D-Portland
and Jim Hill, D-Salem also spoke at the rally.
The state should invest in Oregon instead of in "crimes
against humanity,” Eachus said.
American companies operating in South Africa won’t
cause any changes in the racial segregation policies, Eachus
said. But the threat of divestment will force the South African
government to abandon apartheid, he said.
The struggle to end apartheid comes down to a personal
conviction that “none of my money is going to go to South
Africa,” Eachus said. Divestment of state funds is prudent,
and state revenue will not be endangered by it, he said.
“With your support we’re going to bring this up every
year until we get it (a divestment bill) passed,” Eachus said.
Burton said he believes the Legislature will approve the
divestment bill during the current session, but the struggle to
end apartheid must continue even if the bill is not passed.
“We need to stick with it and keep at it,” Burton said.
Photo by Andrea Skufca
Divestment bill sent to House
By Paul Ertelt
Of the Emerald
SALEM — A House committee on Friday ap
proved a compromise divestment bill, sending it
to the floor of the House.
House Bill 2001-15, an amended version of a
bill intended to divest state funds invested in
companies doing business in South Africa, was
approved by the Human Services Committee 5-4.
The bill directs the state treasurer, in con
sultation with the Oregon Investment Council, to
divest stock in Companies doing business in
South Africa that are not following the expanded
Sullivan Principles, which are voluntary anti
discrimination standards.
The original bill called for complete divest
ment over a two-year period, but Rep. Magaret
Carter, D-Portland, a committee member and
sponsor of the bill, said the original bill had little
chance of passing.
“This was a real compromise for me. . . but it
is better to have something than to have
nothing,” she said. “If we had not had accepted
this, we would have nothing.”
Carter, 13 other representatives, and four
senators sponsored the bill at the request of the
ASUO, the University’s Black Student Union and
others. The bill would affect $300 million of state
investments from the Public Employees Retire
ment Fund, the Industrial Accident Fund, the
Common School Fund, the Oregon War Veteran’s
Fund, and other funds in the custody of the state
treasurer.
In the first phase of the bill’s divestment
schedule, which must be completed by June 30,
1987, the treasurer and the OIC would be required
to remove deposits from banks that make loans to
the South African government or South African
companies. Also, all stocks and bonds in South
African companies would be divested.
During the second phase, which must be
completed by June 30, 1990, the state treasurer
and the OIC must divest stocks and bonds in U.S.
and international companies doing business in
South Africa, unless those companies are follow
ing the Sullivan Principles.
“We started out with a measure in which we
wanted to make a social statement, and I think we
are doing this,’’ said committe member Rep.
Shirley Gold, D-Portland.
But the measure was harshly criticized by
Republican members of the committee, who
argued that divestment will hurt the return on the
affected funds.
Carter responded to that criticism by reading
a letter from a New York stock broker who said
portfolios free of South African investments per
formed as well as non-divested portfolios.
The proposed measure stipulates that divest
ment must be in accordance with the state’s pru
Continued on Page 10
Playboy photographer shares
views on art and pornography
By Michael Duncan
Of the Emerald
When the camera focused on
the first playmate in 1954, an
image was captured that placed
Playboy magazine in the center
of a controversy. Founder Hugh
Hefner hailed his magazine as
promoting the liberation of
women, while journalist Gloria
Steinem has worked to dispel
the “happy bunny” myth.
The Playboy controversy
came to campus Friday with the
arrival of veteran Playboy
photographer David Chan, who
is in Eugene to recruit female
University students for the
“Girls of the Pac-10“ pictorial
essay, pegged for publication in
October.
A graduate of the Brooks In
stitute who is regarded as one of
the master portrait
photographers in the country,
Chan has for almost 20 years
shaped and molded the images
of his models and the very im
age of the magazine itself.
In a motel room temporarily
decorated with college pen
nants, the Emerald turned the
camera and focused on the con
troversial, yet candid, Chan.
EMERALD: How do you view
your medium?
CHAN: Keats sums it up: beauty
is truth and truth is beauty.
When I photograph something,
something that is beautiful, 1 try
to photograph it as it is; it has
its own truth. It is my goal to
capture an image as beautifully
as is the subject. The result is
my art. The playmate is the
ultimate in beauty.
But some people don't see
things this way; 10 people
viewing the same photograph
will look at it 10 different ways
and have 10 different reactions.
Some will see it as art, others as
pornography.
EMERALD: Once a model is
contracted, is the set tailored to
the model or the model to the
set?
CHAN: It can work both ways.
We start out with the lady next
door, and today’s young ladies
are no longer naive, insecure
ladies like they may have been
10 years back. Today is entirely
David Chan
different. They want to go out in
the world and make it on their
own. They don’t need a man to
support them, especially in the
college level.
Usually the set does not have
to be tailored to the model. The
models, for the most part, are
young and haven’t really
developed characteristics that
restrict the casting of an image.
And in the centerfold
photograph we usually try to
make them fit into a fantasy;
they are tailored to our idea of
an impression or image. But
with the picture story showing
her lifestyle, we bring her back
to reality, who she really is.
EMERALD: Does the magazine
respond to what it perceives as
readers’ tastes in sets and
women, or does Playboy create
what readers like?
CHAN: Both and neither. We
always try to put them on a
higher plane than what they
are, we try to make them look as
beautiful, exotic and erotic as
possible. These aspects of what
our readers like to see change
little, but how the beauty is
perceived does change. A good
photograph of a beautiful lady
will always be beautiful
regardless of trends. That is the
signature of art in the medium.
EMERALD: Is Playboy
pornography?
CHAN: That is what the minori
ty group will want to say, for
the minority involved in any
issue always speaks the loudest.
A definition of pornography
depends on who is looking at it
and judging it. I can’t speak for
other people and cannot know
what they want to believe, but I
know it is not pornography. If it
was, I wouldn’t be working
with Playboy. What I do is art.
EMERALD: Some say that
Playboy, considered soft por
nography, is still part of the
continuum that leads to the
degradation of women. Your
reply?
CHAN: I don’t think we degrade
women. No, it is the opposite.
W'e put them on a higher
plateau than what really exists.
When we shoot, we make it
possible for women to do what
they, often times, did not think
Continued on Page 3