1972_03 The Daily Collegian March 1972

              Defoliation
hairs, Joe Guagllardo decided to have them cut instead. So last Friday anernoon he paid a villi to prob-
man on campus - Joe the barber. One hour and three clippers later the new Guagllardo emerged. When Mama
peek at the new Joe the proudly replied, "Thatta my son."
cbil>
Two instructors
/S4^ i wo  insrrucrors
(*ELrxJir.^/\Ji^    get release notes
LXXVII/98     Fresno State College      Fresno, California    Monday, March 20, 1972
Five file petitions for student elections
Hi] three weeks left before
primary election for student
i offices, fivecondldateshave
I  petitions   with  the Student
■tlttons because a problem
le proposed changes In the
n code made it necessary
First lo take advantage of the
ivallable petitions were:
Mark Etcheverry, a newcomer
o Fresno State politics, has filed
t  body
) 22-year-old se
lor Is a pre-veterinary major and
ls currently vice-president of
Blue Key National Honor Fraternity. Etcheverry is a member of
Delta Sigma Phi and has served
He a
nembershlp In
Alpha Zeta, a national honor agricultural fraternity and has served
as its chronicler.
The first candidate for College
Union Senator  Is Jenny Bailey,
currently    the   student  senator
from the School of Professional
A former managing editor and
reporter of the Dally Collegian,
the 21-year-old Miss Bailey now
serves on the College Union Popular Arts Committee and ls the
Student Senate appointment to the
College Union Board.
Dave Davenport, a journalism
major, ls seeking election as
senator-at-large for post number
one.     He was active in student
(Continued on Page 3, col. 1)
Conspicuously absent, however,
was thr furor that marked the
mailing of last.year's  nonreten-
As tn previous years, the department, school, and personnel
committee differed as to whether
the faculty member should be re-
President Norman A. Baxter
again refused to give reasons for
least tn the
letter from  Baxter citing State
Education Code regulations that
the president notify   nonretalned
faculty by March 1.
Ruiz Is not instituting grlev-
on differences between department members as to the scop*
and responsibilities of the position.
Normally the college personnel committee does not review
the case when the school and department agree not to rehire, as
in Ruiz' case, but the School of
Social Sciences' personnel committee took a look at the case,
and couldn't reach a decision.
The coUege personnel committee, according to Ruiz, recommended that he be rehired.
The personnel committee memo
to Academic Vice President
Harold Haak, according to chairman Dr. Warren BIggersUfl, was
(Continued on Page 3, col. 2)
Amnesty:   do we punish those who were right?
By Irish
rk, the ACLU opens
campaign speeches,
politicians take stands. In Con-
cress, a senator proposes a bill.
All are concerned with the same
deserters?
As one who was caught in the
draft, and became a combat veteran ot Vietnam. I'd like to ex-
commentarv
Irish ls a Vietnam combat
view of the question of am-
y for
amine the arguments of those
who completely oppose amnesty,
those in favor of It, and those
urelng only conditional amnesty.
Those In complete opposition
contend that amnesty would be
unfair to those who served, especially those who were wounded
or killed. This view is predicated
on the assumption that all three
million Vietnam veterans "were
willingly Involved in the war.
Don't you believe it! Out of my
25-man reconnaissance platoon,
In which we had a dozen casualties, I can't point to a single
man who believed in what he was
forced to do. But granting amnesty. Us.opponents say, would
undermine ths draft. This specious argument Ignores the fact
that Nix n himself ls questioning
th* draft In his proposal of a
voluntary army. It ls obvious
rather than  radical to say that
the draft ls Inequitable.
to avoid challenging;
merely because it is an institution, regardless of Its validity,
out of fear of •undermining* It?
The third argument against
amnesty is that It makes an individual more Important than the
state. Presumably then, an individual has no right to decide
which laws to obey. The moral
inadequacies ot this argument,
reminiscent of Nazi Germany,
seem Incongruous In a country
allegedly dedicated to the rights
ot th* lndindoal and freedom of
choice. Henry Thoreau, Margaret
Sanger, and Martin Luther King
ar* Just thr** historical exam-
the opponents and the
stand tha crafty politicians who support conditional
amnesty. Senator Robert Tafl has
Introduced a bill that would exchange amnesty for three years
alternative service In the national Interest. Candidate John
Lindsay vehemently disagrees:
two years is long enough to satisfy him. Senator George McGovern, with the PhD's penchant for
splitting hairs, would forgive resistors but not deserters. And
Senator Muskie sidesteps th* issue neatly by claiming it can't
Conditional amnesty ls typical
of the tlt-for-tat capitalist mentality: -If you promise to be
contrite, well let you comohome
and work." In other words, "We'll
forgive you for making us doubt
our sacred Institutions, if you'll
admit your debt to society.* With
one eye toward the voting booth,
the politicians seem more Interested in a just milieu than In
Justice. Who ls forgiving whom?
Conditional amnesty would only
serve to satisfy the Puritan need
for punishment by branding, a
scarlet latter on the brows ot
those who were right In the first
place and have sacrificed and
suffered accordingly.
Those of us who favor unconditional, complete and immediate
amnesty can offer several reasons. Most practically, the military ls in effect already granting amnesty by discharging deserters. The eight sailors who
Jumped their Vietnam-bound ship
and took sanctuary in a San Diego
church recently were granted
discharges under honorable conditions. Secondly, there Is an historical precedent for amnesty:
the great George Washington forgave participants In the Whiskey
Rebellion; Lincoln offered amnesty to some members of the
Confederacy and to Union deserters before the Civil War
ended; Harry Truman appointed
an Amnesty Board that forgave
ten percent of the 15,000 who refused to fight in World War n.
But perhaps the most convincing argument ls the simplest:
dammit, they were tight all the
time! The draft resistors and deserters forced the public to focus
attention on the nature of the war.
They forced those of us who were
drafted to have long second
thoughts about alternatives to induction. In refusing, they showed
the courage of conscience so
sorely needed now If this staggering society ls to be saved.
If anyone la to Judge those who
resisted snd deserted, It should
be we who made other kinds of
my 75,000 bi
dltlon. Not*, And 11
The politicians don't.