Pushcart vendor tries
unconventional approach
See Page 2
Oregon Daily
Emerald
Thursday, February 20, 1986
Eugene, Oregon
Volume 87, Number 102
IFC supports student vote on Commentator
By Kim Kaady
Of thr hmrtalri
The incidental Kee Committee
unanimously voted Tuesday to recorn
mend that the ASUO Constitution Court
place the Oregon Commentator's budget
on the general election ballot in April.
The IFC, which recommended a
budget of. $3,428. fhr the student
newspaper,, based its decision on a
. recommendation from, ASjUO .President
Lynn Pinckney Vadministration/..
"This was tire • only. proposal the
ASUO could ggree to. on a consensus
basis,*** said Ma;y Key Menard,: A..SIJO
assistant-finance coordinator. • • " •
Menard said theASUO executive staff
decided on the amount-after deciiling
that some aspects frf'the Camrnentator' s
$!l.t)H4 proposed budget did .nof' fall
.untier the' •IKC"category.,including
special equipment and.'an* editor's; sti-,
pond-. She' saithsome* mWmber«"»l«ij'ha'd"
• . *; questions abfjiut'thjB leypl of'Studont'sup-';
|M>rt for^the Commentator!'. V '
a group, fe
questionable,, we want to hoar from
students before wo allocate funds,"
Menard said.
The Commentator's request for $9,684
in IFC funds was rejected at the meeting.
In response to the decision, the Com
mentator plans to appeal to the Constitu
tion Court on the grounds of discrimina
tion, said Executive Editor Tom Mann.
"(The ASIJO) disagrees with the con
tent of ? the paper, but they , can’t
X discriminate on the basis of political
“views;*” Mann said. lie said he plans to
submit a request for a hearihg to- the
court today; r, ;
. Mann and Doug Green, Commentator
senior editor, contend that the paper
’ follows every guideline required of cam
°pus -student groups, and should
automatically be awarded IFC• funds
"They, along with Rob Young, Cdimnen
laJqr production manager; spoke.'with
the I FT' before the motion was passed. '
" . The Commentator was given $6,300 in
. .funds last year-and also received
..money the.previous year". Matin'said. He
contends the ASUO is trying to question
the "validity of our purpose" when it
hasn’t been questioned in the past by the
IFC.
"We haven’t changed in content or
format for the past three years and have
gotten funding for the past two/’ ’he
said.
However, Menard said the IFC receiv
ed "a lot of letters" last year from
students, staff and faculty who opposed
the Commentator and felt it should not
be awarded IFC funds.'oShe said the com
mittee received three letters in support of
the Commentator.
Mann said the Commentator has suc
ceeded in its purpose to be an alternative
journal of opinion' at the University as
well as being the only dissenting voice
on campus.*
IFC Chairman jim Randall said the
Commentator can withdraw its request
for funds and is.not required to go on the
ballot. The Commentator can bring its
proposal, back, to the IFC if the measure
fails, but the IFC will not take further ac
tion until then, he said. • \ ..
p
Rob Young, Doug Green and Tom
Mann (left to right)
Nuclear deterrence is key to peace
■ • : By Andrew LaMar
" " •' -'Of #m»Kiyijif • V. '/>' . v
h*vSoy,ii*l Union and- United Slat.es should try to
inaintWm a nuclear urmamentjbalance that woujd assure
rmitiaiUdestruct joriJf a nui.lear war were ever Initialed,
lIijiyersity./phyiMcs.'.professor’ John Moseley said
VVednesday^aftembqn..‘ '> . «'•
Moseley,- .also the Unlvefflty.’s'acting vice presi
dent for. research, spoke'about the possible elimination
of .nuclear weapons, to-about 50 people‘in Gilbert Hall
Wednesday.;'...* ‘ . . . *:»• •
The goal bf eliminating nuclear-Weapons ‘.‘is not as
simple as we* would like, to think it is." Moseley said.
There ‘ would be three major dangers once nuclear
weapons were believed to be eliminated, he said. '• =
One of the dangers would arise if a major conven
tional War the sto of World War II ever broke.out, he
said! If qne'Oouqtiy were to start losing a major conven
tional war.' -If" might consider building .nuclear
John Moseley
weapons, which "would make it superior in a nuclear
free world,, he said’
• "Even-if nuclear weapons were eliminated, the
knowledge would still exist." Moseley said. .
When both nations have a substantial amount of
nuclear weapons, cheating in the margins doesn’t make
much difference, he said, but if there were no weapons,
any cheating could mean a big advantage.
In order to avoid any nuclear confrontation, both
the Soviet Union and the United States must believe in
itiating a nuclear war would assure mutual destruction. '
he said. ... •
Moseley said he would accept the proposal Soviet
President Mikhail Gorbachev presented to President
Reagan last month (Gorbachev’s proposal calls.for the
elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2000..
Another danger of eliminating nuclear weapons
would be the Soviet Union and the United States hiding
some weapons after both countries had agreed to
eliminate the weapons: he said. Weapon hiding, would
probably occur no matter how detailed on-site inspec
tions became, he said. - •
The real struggle would be in eliminating the last
few hundred nuclear weapons, he said.
"At the time, there would be. it would seem to me,
a great temptation.. to keep a few aces in the deck or
up their sleeves somewhere just in case something went
wrong somewhere in the future." Moseley said.
Nonetheless, the amount of nuclear weapons
would be significantly reduced, he said. They, probably
would be reduced enough to eliminate first-strike
capabilities and the possibility of a nuclear winter if an
exchange were ever to occur, he said.
"The real danger is that one country or another
maintains enough weapons so that they have the
possibility to somehow mount a first strike — or at least
they believe they could," he said. .
One person suggested delivery systems for the
weapons also would have to be eliminated if any hones
ty in the agreement were to be kept. But Moseley said it
would be difficult to consider wiping out delivery
systems without considering wiping out transportation
systems such as airlines, which could deliver nuclear
weapons.
"You could make it very difficult to build more
nuclear weapons, but I think it is very difficult to have
an exact count of the number that exists and keep a ma
jor power from hiding a large enough number of
nuclear weapons to be of serious concern.”
Moseley said delivery systems would definitely
have to be controlled somehow. The problem with the
Star Wars plan is that it assumes the delivery would be
Continued on Page 2
Reagan’s budget
cuts building fund
. ■ President Reagan's recently proposed budget
for fiscal year 1987 calls for the postponement of
federal funding, for two University science
buildings that had been planned for construction
later this year'. .
University officials had expected to receive
an $8.5 million appropriation for the buildings in
March but are uncertain when the money will
come.
The appropriation was to be the second in
stallment of a.federal grant totalling $33 million
for the building project. The money was allocated
by Congress and signed by President Reagan as
.part”of the fiscal year 1986 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill.
Ttve University i%:eived $2.3 million last
year to design the buildings. University officials
were originally planning on breaking ground for
the buildings in September
Now the University hopes to receive the
money sometime in the late summer and start
construction on the buildings next spring, said
John Moseley, the University’s acting vice presi
dent for research. Nothing, however, is deffinite,
Moseley said.
University'officials have expressed their con
cern to Oregon Sens.. Mark Hatfield and Bob
Packwood. Moseley Said.
"At the. moment, Senators Hatfield and
Packwood are responsible for getting the money
free," Moseley.said.
A story in Tuesday’s Register-Guard incor
rectly reported that the University had sent
Charlene Curry, the University's director of
government relations, to Washington, D.C. to
help free up the funds, Moseley said.
Curry was sent to Washington to meet with
government officials as part of her job, Moseley
said.
"She’s not going back to Washington just to
meet with the President.” Moseley said. "That's
silly. This is an $8 million project in a $500
billion budget."
If the. University doesn’t get the money, it
would be a serious blow to the University’s efforts
at economic development, he said. But the
University does expect to get the money, he
added.