ustxtxb_obs_1969_02_21_50_00016-00000_000.pdf

Dialogue ional policy is the recognition and encouragement of the right of labor organizations to organize postal employees, bargain collectively, and present grievances, including complaints of discrimination, without restraint, coercion, interference, intimidation, or reprisal. The bill would give the unions the right to participate with management in setting personnel policies and practices. Under the terms of the bill, the labor organizations are prohibited from discriminating against any employee with regard to the terms or conditions of membership because of race, color, or creed. The postal union is required to admit any employee in 16 The Texas Observer the unit upon request, without discrimination. Any union which, “by ritualistic practice, constitution, or bylaws proscription, by tacit agreement among its members or otherwise, denies membership because of race, color, religion, national origin,” etc., is excluded from the terms of the bill. It has not passed and well may not. It is Austin A little interest is stirring at the University of Texas in the March fourth one-day “research stoppage” which will occur at MIT, Cornell, and Yale to protest government “misuse” of science and technology. During the stoppage, prominent speakers are to argue against the anti-ballistics missile system now being evaluated in Washington and will seek to stir support for social improvements. At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, speakers will include Lewis Mumford, the architect and city planner, and Sen. George S. McGovern, D-SD. Paul Stanley Peters, Jr., assistant professor of linguistics at the University of Texas, said he read about the stoppage in Science and has been discussing with his colleagues “the possibility of having a similar event here.” “At present there aren’t any firm plans at all,” Peters told the Observer. “I guess part of the problem is that there is some apprehensiveness by some faculty members about doing something that would get the board of regents somewhat’ unhappy, I think it’s very unfortunate, but that has to be faced.” Petitions of support for the MIT movement, and possibly “an open seminar” are contemplated by Dr. Robert Joel Yaes, faculty associate in physics, at UT. One not, however, correct to say that Yarborough is not concerned about the matters Sherrill was discussing. Most people acquainted with Yarborough’s public record would have assumed him to be right on these questions, and he is. Any US senator is always subject to criticism, but in this case, I do not believe Sherrill’s criticism of Yarborough was sound. R.D. petition, for which Yaes says he has found “considerable support” among his colleagues in physics, would be a statement of support for the research stoppage. A second petition would be signed by scientists willing to declare that they will cease their research on March 4 and devote themselves to their teaching duties. Yaes expects that fewer faculty scientists would sign the latter petition. He reasons, however, that “it isn’t really a strike,” because professors have to divide their time between teaching and planning their lectures, on the one hand, and research on the other, and they are at liberty, if they wish, to devote March 4 to the teaching side of their responsibilities. Yaes doubted that outside speakers could be obtained, but thought the University of Texas reponse to the MIT program might include, for instance, a speaker on the technical aspects of the antiballistics missile. Headlines Two headlines on the front page of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram last week: “JFK Front-Fire Theory Upheld.” “Grier Tells of Chaos After RFK Was Shot.” Research Stoppage Being Considered I appreciate the Observer’s coverage [Feb. 7] of the adoption of new rules by the Senate. At the same time I feel it necessary to clarify any confusion surrounding co-sponsorship of my amendments to open the nominations procedure to the public. Senators Wilson and McKool voted for the new rules and enthusiastically supported the two amendments proposed by me, but apparently failed to co-sign both amendments. Any suggestion that either senator had any reservation concerning either the amendment requiring open Nom inations Committee meetings or the amendment permitting senators to reveal their votes after executive session is completely unwarranted. Both senators supported the amendments wholeheartedly, and both signed everything I asked them to sign. The omission of their signatures was due to the hurried and separate circulation of the amendments on the floor, and has no other significance. Sen. A. R. Schwartz, State Capitol, Austin, Tex.