| OCR Text |
Show Letters to the EdiTon low up on OUR new and help them make st !' they keep the promises that 11 made to us for this coming Let's stop being the "t care" group and make tir, " pus work for us. 11 Make an effort Editor: The campaign clutter h nally been removed and away from the campus, but , campaign promises still w Usually the benevolent oft. to the studentbody for the . life or the "Great Society" taken with a grain of salt ' suppose one of the Exm Council members actually fc-campaign fc-campaign promise. Probabll. heavens would open up anj lelujas would come forth Sarcasm put aside, a a sit I would strongly urge fte t studentbody officers to n effort to at least earn their ' waiver and try to imp!emer pn programs they have pronfe initiate. P MICHAEL R, Sproul Hall) is a tactic to draw as many ambulatory students as possible together for the purpose of proliferating the leftist line In an atmosphere geared to nothing but passive reception of their emotion-charged rhetoric. The S)S and other elements of the New Left should not be allowed al-lowed to prostitute such ideals as free speech and the abolition of poverty and "repression" for the purpose of promoting their anti-establishment anti-establishment line, especially at an institution that is created and maintained by that establishment, with rules and regulations for the preservation of the unhampered pursuit of individual academic interests. in-terests. JEFF BINGHAM Challenge Editor: My professor in economics today to-day stated he felt that the problem prob-lem with so few of the students voting for their representatives on campus (ASUU) might be the fact that many of them don't have to pay their own tuition. Their parents pay for them quarter after aft-er quarter and they don't know what it means to give away their own money for their education, so they don't care how it is spent or who represents their money. I tend to agree with him. I'm not saying that all of the students stu-dents don't appreciate the money spent on them by their parents, but too many of them, I feel, djn't. I challenge all students to get out and do somethng about their campus, even if it's just voting when the times comes up again. New ASUU: I learned my lesson les-son about being apathetic on campus my first year here. I didn't appreciate my education, nor did I care about where my parents' money went, either. But now I do, because that money comes out of MY pocket, instead. I'll support you when you work for the students, but as a student, stu-dent, I'd better see you doing just that! I challenge all students to fol- Abortion Editor: In Friday's Letters to the Editor, Edi-tor, Joseph Harris suggested that we form a "measles club" in conjunction with the Health Service Ser-vice so as to 'infect those girls who have not contracted the illness; ill-ness; this would therefore curb the possibilities of future birth defects. I suggest that we take this one step further. It seems that Utah will stand by its many archaisms for a long time ... one such archaism being the oppressive laws regarding abortion. It is a known fact that the Health Center has sent pregnant preg-nant girls who have been infected with the German measles to the University Medical Center for theraputic abortion. If this is the case, why not extend the facilities facili-ties of such a "measles club" to those who find themselves amidst unwanted pregnancy ... 'if not within conjunction of the Health Center, then without. It makes sense. Think about it. SUESAN W. TAYLOR Free speech? Editor: It has been said that "inconsistency "inconsis-tency is the refuge of the unimaginative." unimag-inative." It is reassuring to see that the leftist micro-element on this campus has not had its imagination imag-ination stifled, apparently, for they are anything but consistent. Last week they called for university uni-versity neutrality. .Today, they call for politicalization of the campus cam-pus in an attempt to justify their noon rally on the Union lawn. Yes, imagination still exists in the minds of the New Left. In fact, it would seem to reign supreme. su-preme. It would take seme real imagination imag-ination for them to believe that they are really being taken seriously ser-iously by anything but a small minority of the students on this campus; in fact, by anyone who is not new-left themselves. Even more imagination would be necessary neces-sary for them to think that they are viewed as being true advocates advo-cates of such noble ideals as free speech. Recent history proves otherwise. The leftists in Berkeley followed fol-lowed up Mario Savio's 1964 campaign cam-paign for free speech with demonstrations demon-strations and rallies that resulted in the Faculty Resolution of December De-cember 8, 1964, which stated "that the content of speech or advocacy should net be restricted by the university." With the adoption of this resolution, all previous limitations limi-tations on speech were lifted. How did the intellectual climate fare as a result? Were all elements then allowed free expression of opinion and ideology? Professor Lewis S. Feuer, then a professor of philosophy and science at Berkeley, described the resulting situation: ". . . the freedom of speech which emerged in Berkeley this past year was unilateral, a freedom free-dom for the New Left which the latter was prepared to deny to others." (Atlantic, Sept., 1966) The methods used to deny to others the right to speak freely are illustrated by Professor Feuer. They range from the creation cre-ation of an atmosphere of anti-paranoia, anti-paranoia, in which anyone who didn't follow a leftist line in speech or print was labelled as "Paranoid," to actual booing-down booing-down of pro-adminisartion speakers, speak-ers, like Robert Scalapino and William Bundy. The very purpose of noon-day rallies in such central cen-tral locations as the Union lawn (ln Berkeley it was the steps of |
