| OCR Text |
Show : SDS added another voice " to Teach -in's effectiveness editorial in Ramparts' special ecology eco-logy issue and to say that the ecology leaflet that members of the Utah SDS ecology committee had printed by National SDS, had nothing to do with ecology is a lie. If, however, the charge had been that we didn't deal exclusively exclusive-ly With ecology, I would agree, and I feel that I have explained why. It is impossible to separate the issues that confront us today into neat little compartments because be-cause they all come from the same source. Solutions within the system just do not work. If promoting an organization was the only reason for demanding demand-ing an apology, then you should demand apologies from anyone who had a booth, because that was what they were there for. If, however, how-ever, SDS is being asked to apologized apol-ogized because it represents an unpopular viewpoint, I don't feel they need to apologize to any one. As far as giving "some people" proof that the Teach-in was communist com-munist inspired, why did they even have to come to find that out? J. P. O'Keefe gave them that proof already. If they didn't go beyond the front door, did they really come to hear what was being be-ing said, or did they come to have their own narrow viewpoint reen-forced? reen-forced? As far as I am concerned, the University is still the proper place to discuss issues. If the purpose of the Teach-in was to show that students stu-dents can easily be diverted from working for other pressing issues, if the purpose of the Teach-in was to give government and industry an open forum, then maybe SDS' participation in it did hinder its ' BY BILL WILSON When I first read the April 23, editorial "An Apology Is Due," I thought that the Chronicle had j reversed a stand taken during the Vietnam Teach-in. However, - further investigation proved mo wrong. They hadn't reversed a HL stand; they had made clearer what they mean when they say "both sides." In the editorial of 'W October 14 it was stated: Clal;. Tjie seCond reason which leads us to feel that little will come from the discussions on Wednesday is lja inherent in the name itself of one of the day's activities. It is being called a "teach-in" as opposed to k a "learn-in". The name itself im-Att: im-Att: plies a kind of non-communicative past atmophere with everyone straightening straight-ening everyone else out and no , one attending with an open mind e' in order to hear other Viewpoints. While this may be a trivial point, Sf it does nevertheless have a lot to $1 do with setting the mood for the Hi entire affair. A glance at the ros-Ip ros-Ip ter also reveals that those doing H the teaching represent only one tag action the one against the war. fjg To us, this seems contrary to the fifs idea of the university as a place where all sides are considered so . the best one may be discovered. i4i The march may show to some '4M. extent opposition to the war. But Ssg opposition to the war has been in 1 evidence for several years, and " we are still in Vietnam." f: T What I think the Chronicle &i means when it says both sides is R9 that if they agree with the side y that is presented then both sides 'j m have been presented because if kM one would look over the roster fJg lor the Environmental teach-in, one would'find it stacked with peo- effectiveness. If that was the case, then I cannot say that I am sorry. However, if the purpose of the Teach-in was to discuss our environmental en-vironmental problems, then I don't think that SDS ruined the Teach-in's effectiveness, but rather rat-her added a voice that needs to be heard. j pie offering us the same liberal ?g solutions to the ecology problem f as they offered us to the Vietnam problem. Perhaps we can wait jkI another 10 to 20 years to get out j of Southeast Asia, but can we wait pH that long to solve our environ- !P mental problems? if In an interview on NBC radic ffg last Saturday a commentator was trying to find out why it was that j lib there weren't many black people involved in the teach-in. A black -i student from the Washington, D.C., area said, "To us survival i I isn't something that we have to worry about 20 or 30 years from j now. It is something that we have r udsj to worry about everyday. We're jo j forced to live near the factories. lOtvj we are the ones who get the pollu- tion the worse." To talk of en-I en-I vironment we have to talk of more op;- than ecology. We must talk of eliminating ghettos, poverty, rac-JH! rac-JH! ism and the many other things which pollute our minds. For as that same black man said, "Why . jpjS don't they ever have a human V; ri8hts day?" Jin The April 23 editorial stated, "s "Members (of SDS) passed out wt 0Wn literature." Whose liter-lan liter-lan P. ature were we supposed to pass 5V out? Kennecott's? What is implied Bg in that quote is that our literature anj lad nothing to do with ecology. 0i This is pure fabrication. To say lB that the last two issues of New V I Lcft Notes which contained arti-W arti-W '; cls on ecology, to say that the |
