Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (June 7, 1973)
Page 2 P o rtla n d /O b s e rv e r Thursday June 7, 1973 WE SEE THE WORLD SUPPCMC COURT AFFIRMS RICHMOND DESEGREGATION PLAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THROUGH BLACK EYES mml NUDINO ALFRED LEE HENDERSON EDITOR/PUBUSHER Editorial focus ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■J No quotas from Nixon The q u e s tio n o f q uo ta s has a g a in co m e to a tte n tio n as R oger K e lle y, re tirin g assistant secre ta ry o f d e fe n s e fo r m a n p o w e r, said th e re w ill be no ra c ia l q uo tas in the m ilita ry . This is a w e lc o m e sta te m e nt to m a n y persons w h o a g re e w ith the N ixo n A d m in is tra tio n th a t th e re sh o u ld be no a t te m p t to g u a ra n te e o p p o rtu n itie s fo r m in o ritie s in the va rio u s fie ld s o f e m p lo y m e n t. M ost Black p e o p le w h o h ave b e e n in v o lv e d in the stru g g le fo r e q u a l o p p o rtu n ity in e m p lo y m e n t a n d e d u c a tio n a re n ot so o p p ose d to quotas. It w as o n ly th ro u g h th e im p o s itio n o f quotas, e n fo rc e d by th e th re a t o f w ith d ra w a l o f fe d e ra l m o n e y , th a t Blacks w e re a llo w e d to e n te r m an y o f th e trades a n d professions. It w as o n ly because o f the im p o s itio n o f quo tas th a t Blacks w e re a llo w e d a n d e n c o u ra g e d to a tte n d th e b e tte r schools. It w as o n ly because o f th e im p o s itio n o f quotas that Blacks w e re p ro m o te d to positions s o m e w h a t com - m e n so ra te w ith e d u c a tio n a nd a b ility . So Blacks d o not fe a r quotas. W e re a liz e th a t if Black p e o p le a n d o th e r m in o ritie s w e re a llo w e d a tru e e q u a l o p p o rtu n ity in e d u c a tio n , in housing a n d e n v iro n m e n t, in h e a lth care, in e co n o m ic pursuits, th e re w o u ld be no need fo r quotas. The p ercen ta ge s in e m p lo y m e n t a n d th e professions w o u ld a p p ro x im a te the p e rc e n ta g e in the g e n e ra l p o p u la tio n . A typ ica l excuse a p p e a re d in a lo ca l w h ite d a ily . . . " I t w o u ld c e rta in ly slo w th e g a m e to a p p ly a 13.5 p e rce n t Black q uo ta to p ro fe ssio n a l b a s k e tb a ll." O f course this is rid ic u lo u s — w e speak o f b ro a d p e rce n ta g e s a nd th e im p lie d o p p o rtu n ity -- n ot d e c im a l points. O r let us carry it o ne step fa r t h e r . . . lim it th e troops in the fro n t lin e tren che s a nd th e b a ttle ca sua ltie s to 13.5 p ercen t Black. Portland schools immune On M a y 21st th e U n ite d States S uprem e C ourt a ffirm e d the d e cisio n o f the Fourth C ircu it C ourt o f A p p e a ls, h a ltin g the d e s e g re g a tio n o f the Rich m on d, V irg in a schools. D ese gre ga tion by c o m b in in g the m a jo rity Black city schools w ith m a jo rity w h ite su b u rb a n schools had b ee n o rd e re d by a lo w e r court. The d e cisio n w as a c tu a lly a 4 to 4 tie, w h ich d id n o t d e c id e th e m erits o f m e tro p o lita n d e se g re g a tio n . A ll o f this is a p p a re n tly o f no conse qu en ce to P ortland -- since th e P ortland P ublic Schools have not b e e n e ffe c te d by p re v io u s court decisions. It m ig h t seem strange, but P o rtlan d has re m a in e d im m u n e to th e " la w o f th e la n d " . The court has fo u n d " fre e d o m o f c h o ic e " to be u n c o n s titu tio n a l, b ut it is used in P ortland. Both Black a nd w h ite paren ts can tra n sfe r th e ir c h ild re n to o th e r schools, su p p o se d ly to p ro m o te , b ut a lso to a vo id , d e se g re g a tio n . O n e -w a y b u sin g has bee n fo u n d to be u n c o n s titu tio n a l since it p laces th e b u rd e n u n fa irly on Black c h ild re n a n d parents. Yet o n e -w a y busing is the o n ly fo rm o f " d e s e g re g a tio n " p ra ctice d by the P ortland P ublic Schools. As a re su lt w e fin d m o re se g re g a tio n in the p u b lic schools in P ortland th a n th e re w as w h e n the B ro w n d e cisio n w as re a ch e d in 1954, or w h e n Black P ortland b e g a n ta lk in g a b o u t school s e gre g a tio n in 1962. Yes P ortland seem s im m u n e to th e la w , fo r th e o n ly p la ns w e h ea r a b o u t is th e u ltim a te g o a l to close the A lb in a schools a n d send th e c h ild re n w h o liv e h ere o u t to o th e r schools. C le a rly this is u n c o n s titu tio n a l, a cc o rd in g to p re vio u s co u rt fin d ings. The p u b lic school a d m in is tra tio n has b e e n sittin g on this p la n fo r tw o years, re p o rte d ly w ith the m o n e y a v a ila b le to in itia te it, w a itin g fo r the rig h t m o m e n t to sp rin g it on us. MEMBER NÊW pn A PER Astocialion - Foundad 1885 I’ ubltsled e v e ry Thursday by E xle Publishing Company, 2201 N . Killlngsw ortb, Portland, Oregon 97217. M ailin g address, P .O . Box 3137, Portland, Oregon 97208 Subs nptions $5.25 p er y e a r - T ri-C o u n ty a re a , $ 6 .0 0 per year - outside Portland. Iclepbone, 283-2486. Second Class Postage Paid a t P ortland, O reg on T t * O bserver's official position is expressed only In itr P u b lis h er’ s Column (The O bservation Post) and the E d ito r's lie s k . Any other m a M rla l throughout the paper is the opinion of the individual w r l a r o r sub m itter and does not necessarily re fle c t the opinion of the o b s e rv e r. ■ : What other Black Papers say ; ! [From the L o u isville D e fe n d e r] A t a tim e w h e n p u b lic c o n fid e n c e in the W h ite House is at an a ll tim e lo w . a nd also w h e n the W a te rg a te e s p io n a g e is e x p lo d in g b e y o n d a n y o th e r n a tio n a l g o v e rn m e n t scandal, it b e h o o ve s the N ix o n A d m in is tra tio n to c o m p ly w ith b o th fe d e ra l court orders, w h ic h insist that he a p p ro p ria te h ig h w a y fu n d s a n d th a t he not d is m a n tle OEO. The d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n the tw o signs w as th a t th e h ig h w a y case w as a rg u in g th a t C ongress is the o n ly o n e th a t can stop the d isb u rse m e n t o f fu nd s a n d n ot the W h ite House. They a lso c la im th a t u nd ue harm had b ee n d o n e to thousands o f re s i dents in M a ry la n d because o f th e fu n d s b e in g im p o u n d e d in d ire c t c o n tra d ic tio n to the la n g u a g e o f the le g is la tio n . In the OEO case, la w y e rs fo r fh e p o v e rty p ro gram s e ffe c tiv e ly c la im e d in an "e m p lo y e e s s u it" th a t a tre m e n d o u s a m o u n t o f p s y c h o lo g ic a l a nd p hysical h arm w as b e in g d o n e to th e w o rk e rs in the p o v e rty p ro g ra m by h a v in g th e ir fu nd s im p o u n d e d a nd the D irector instru cted by N ix o n to d is m a n tle a ll o f the o ffic e s in W a s h in g to n , as w e l as a ll re g io n a l o ffic e s a nd loca l CAP a g e n cie s n a tio n a lly by June 30, 1973. The suit c o n te n d e d th a t any d is m a n tlin g o f OEO w as c o n tra ry to the 1972 OEO a p p ro p ria tio n s b ill th a t Congress passed last ye ar w ith the expressed la n g u a g e th a t OEO w as not be d is m a n tle d , d e c e n tra liz e d or te rm in a te d in a n y fa s h io n . The law w e n t a h e a d to p o in t o u t that fu nd s w e re v o te d and set a sid e fo r a c o n tin u a tio n o f the a g e n c y u n til fisca l 1975. W h a t fe d e ra l ju d g e W illia m Jones said was: " A n a d m in is tra to r's re s p o n s ib ility to carry o ut the C on gre ssio na l o b je c tiv e s o f a p ro g ra m does not g iv e h im th e p o w e r to d is c o n tin u e that p ro g ra m , e s p e c ia lly in the fa ce o f a C on gre ssio na l m a n d a te to c o n tin u e the p ro g ra m ." A d m in is tra tio n la w y e rs are saying th a t m a n y o f th e th o rn y le g a l issues in v o lv in g im p o u n d m e n t o f fu nd s a n d o th e r a d m in is tra tiv e actions u ltim a te ly w ill reach the S uprem e C ourt. They are correct in this assum ptio n b ut fhe D e fe n d e r b e lie v e s th e y w ill lose also at this le v e l. N o court, reg ardle ss o f fhe o rig in o f som e o f it's judges, is g o in g to ta m p e r w ith the h isto rica l b a la n c e o f p o w e r in w h ic h the fo u n d in g fa th ers very c le a rly s p e lle d out th e fu n c tio n s a nd responsi- b ilite s o f each branch o f g o v e rn m e n t in the c o n s titu tio n . There a re at least 15 le g a l cases a lre a d y on the books to su pp ort this p o s itio n a nd w e c a n n o t see the S uprem e C ourt g o in g a ga in st these le g a l p recedents. N o President has ever crea ted as m a n y C o n s titu tio n a l crises as N ix o n . The o th e r im p ra c tic a l aspect o f th e W h ite H ouse's strategy is th a t a t the present tim e these fe d e ra l court ru lin g s can be e x p a n d e d on to a ffe c t o th e r a d m in is tra tio n decisions to im p o u n d funds and d is m a n tle o th e r program s. W e w e lc o m e the case b e fo re the S uprem e C ourt because it m ay p e rm a n e n tly put an e nd to N ix o n 's e ffo rt to im p o u n d or d is m a n tle p ro gram s he d isa pp rove s o f p rim a rily because th e y do n ot have his p ersonal p o litic a l la b e l. PEW CAN PRETEND TO HAVE FORESEEN HOW THE NATION THAT RESPONDED TO THE CIVIL R IP U T O ELOQUENCE OF PRKIN6-AMD LYNDON JOHNSON- W0DLD PE6RESS IN THE NITON EttAT JAMES A WECHSLER NE POST Scrapping Desegregation ? ? ? I LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Fishing trip brings fines To Whom It May concern. On May 5. 1973 I decided to get my Fiancee a fishing license and take her fishing somewhere close. We decided to check the *7.'fcsynopsis oi> fishing regu lations, or should I say, she did. fn doing so, she read winter regulations and it was th o ro u g h ly m isunderstood. So we decided on Eagle Creek in Estacada. While driving on the road along Eagle Creek, we noticed quite a few cars and thought that this would be a good spot. NO TIM E FOR EDITORIAL COMMERCIALS By Ron Hendren W A S H IN G T O N -T h e Supreme Court last week lent its support to radio and tele vision broadcasters in deciding that neither the Constitution nor federal law requires them to sell commercial air time for editorial statements on controversial subjects. Chief Justice Warren E Burger deliv ered the majority opinion, which dealt an all but killing blow to a recent movement aimed at forcing the communi cations media to open the airwaves to persons and groups who wish to grind their axes in public. The Federal Communications Com mission had already sided with the broad casters in refusing to require them to sell editorial advertisements. However, Burger’s opinion, in which he was joined by six other justices, reaffirmed the appli cability of the FCC’s “ fairness doctrine” which requires balanced treatment of controversial topics. Two justices-Thurgood Marshall and William J. Brennan, Jr. dissented. “ Any person wishing to market a particular brand of beer, soap, toothpaste or de odorant has direct, personal and instan taneous access to the electronic media,” Brennan noted. “ Yet a similar individual seeking to discuss war. peace, pollution or the suffering o f the poor is denied this right to speak.” But the majority of the court took the view that editors are just that persons whose job it is to select material for broadcasting or publication-and so long as the general guidelines of the fairness doctrine are followed, there is no require ment to open the airwaves to “ self- appouited editorial commentators.” The axe grinders had hoped to extend their fight for time and space to the newspapers as well This defeat at the hands of the high court is likely to end those hopes We have tended to recognize one basic difference between broadcast and print media in this country. Anybody who has the talent and money is free to crank out his own newsletter, magazine or news paper. And one glance at the annual attrition rate among periodicals will as sure any skeptic that plenty o f people try, even though very few are able to survive the stiff competition. (This writer, still in his fledgling second year of syndi cation, notes appreciatively that the same is true of columnists.) There is only a li mi ted amount of air space, however, either for aircraft or for radio and television signals. For this reason, the airwaves have traditionally been considered public property, and the FCC has the responsibility to issue broad cast liscenses, which must be renewed periodically, on a competitive basis Thus there is necessarily a significantly higher degree of government regulation in broad casting than in the print media But in this most recent decision the court refused to extend that regulation and thereby shackle the hands of broad cast editors Said Burger, after admitting there was some radio and television edi torial abuse, "Calculated risks of abuse are taken in order to preserve higher values ” He might have added that that premise is an important cornerstone in the foun dation not only o f freedom o f the press, but of all freedoms Syndlcattd 19 7 J by W A SH IN G TO N W E E K L Y , Inc All right» rsssrvsd So we pulled off down this side cutoff and parked. We got out of the car. grabbed our fishing poles and headed for the creek. When we arrived 1 pointed out to Cindy that there were two fishermen at the base of the lad d e r fish in g , which is strictly against the rules, and so stated that we should go further down stream. We spent most of the time teach ing her to cast and getting her line loose from snags. A fter approximately 1 hour, we derided to go to Promi lory Park, since we had no luck and other fishermen were accumulating and it was getting a little crowded. While we were leaving, a state patrolman appeared and asked us for our licenses, which we showed him. He then asked if we had any luck, end we told him "no". Then he asked if we knew we were fishing in a closed stream. 1 told about the reading of the synopsis and explained to the officer that we had mis read it end would not have been fishing there had we know that it was closed. In spite of all pleas the officer (»170 11, R.H. Ellsworth) issued a citation to each of us for thirty seven dollars each and as we drove off he grinned at both of us. On May 16, 1973, at 9:30 a.m., we appeared before a traffic judge at room 304 of the Oregon City, Clackamas County Court House. My fiancee, Cindy, appeared first. The judge proceeded to ask her if she knew that the stream was closed and she stated "no”. He asked if she had read the synopsis, and she said she did not know what it was for sure but that she had evidently mis read it. He then explained to her . . they have more arrests on Eagle Creek than any other stream in the state and that they haul them out of there by the car load every weekend!" Then he asked her if she had ever been fishing before; she said "no". He chuckled and suspended her $25 fine to $13. Next, I was called on the stand. He asked me if I had every been fishing before. I said "yes" and explained that I had taken Cindy fishing for the experience. He fined me $25 and that was that! I do know a couple of people who have received tickets in the same area for the same reason and they were equally ignorant of the formal rules. Now, my con tention is, if they have that much of a "racket” going on there on that creek. I feel the state has reaped enough profit from that particular creek. I feel, and I am sure there are thousands of other fishermen that feel the same way. My main point is that this stream. Eagle Creek, and others should hr posted. It is only fair. We pay enough in angling fees to allow for the cost of posting a few streams. There a lot of people who enjoy fishing in Oregon waters and not because they feel they are getting away with something illegal. It would be a pleasure to hear other Oregonians who have something to say in this m atter to speak out! Respectfully submitted. H erb ert "Mike" Howard W averly passes test Dear Editor: A few weeks ago the Observer published a front page picture of children in the care of the W averly Chil dren's Home sleeping on the floor. Since the Children's Services Division contracts with W averly, I undertook a review of this particular sit uation as it relates to our continuing program arrange menls with the agency. It should be pointed out th a t W a v e rly C h ild re n 's Home provides emergency shelter care for children on referral by the Children's Services Division, or in many rases, by local police agen cies, when for any number of reasons it ia necessary for youngsters to be removed from their homes or when they are found by neighbors or police at home without proper supervision. In every instance these situations are referred to the juvenile court immediately for review and further planning, W averly provides the only group emergency shelter care facility in the Portland M e tra politan area, making avail able aproximately twenty five spaces for emergency placement. Ordinarily emer gency placem enta are of short duration until the child is returned home or placed in a foster home. The Observer's picture of children sleeping on the floor was taken at a time when there was an unusually large number of children in emer gency care. In such a situa tion, the agency does find it necessary to utilize sleeping bags or mattresses to ac commodate the overload. Rut again, this situation ia quickly remedied as other children move out and make beds available. T he p a rtic u la r situ atio n highlighted by the Observer's picture was due in part to the construction program now in progress at W averly, and it is my opinion that the need to utilize sleeping ac commodations of this sort in the future will be minimal when new quarters are avail able. From my perspective, the W a v e rly C h ild re n 's Home provides a critical service to the children in Multnomah County. I would invite the Observer's editor to visit personally with M r. Jack H e n ry , d ire c to r of the agency, to see the program in action. Sincerely, Don M iller, Administrator Children's Services Division Dept. of Human Resources (Editor's note: We would like to know the scope of Mr. Miller's investigation before calling the m atter cloaed. 1) Did you question staff members and former staff members of W averly about treatm ent and attitude to ward the Shelter Care chil dren? 21 Did you ask CSD staff why W averly ia used only as a last resort? 3) Did you ask Juvenile Court Counsellors what they have seen or not been al lowed to see? 4) Did you question why CSD social workers and court counselors are not allowed to visit the children's living quarters as they are free to do in your own Children's Farm Hbme? 5) Did you wonder why the emphasis and conversa tion always returns to the treatm ent of the mentally retarded children rather than shelter care? 6) Did you find out why children are accepted for care when there are not ade quate facilities for them? 7) Did you question why complaints have continued over a period of years when construction now taking place ia a temporary concern?)
