Editor’s note: 1952 proved to be the worst year for polio in the history of Malheur County and across the nation. Nationally there were 57,628 reported cases that year, three years before the inject able Salk vaccine was declared safe for widespread use. The oral Sabine vaccine began to be administered in 1961, soon eradicating polio in this country.)
The Dec. 15, 1952 issue of The Argus-Observer reported that the polio epidemic in the Malheur County area had ended on Nov. 5 with 78 cases treated in the polio ward of a Nyssa hospital, including 47 people from Malheur County.
There were five deaths from polio at the hospital during the year. Those five were Tony Liebag and his mother Dorothy of Hines, Oregon, Kathleen Lowe of Payette, Julia Ann Kirby of Baker and Gary Lee Denton of Baker County.
Another five Malheur County cases were reported receiving treatment at other hospitals or at home, bringing the total for the county for the year to 52.
L.A. Maulding, the Malheur County health officer, said he was surprised at how suddenly the epidemic stopped. The epidemic lasted four months, with polio patients were checking into the Nyssa hospital at a rate of almost one a day until Nov. 5, when they abruptly stopped. In 1947, the worst previous polio year in the county, the epidemic lasted seven months but with just 24 cases reported countywide.
With the epidemic apparently over, three patients who were treated at the hospital required rehabilitation including one 17-year-old boy who was paralyzed from the waist down, Maulding said.
Maulding told the newspaper that he hoped to raise awareness and funding for a rehabilitation wing at the Nyssa hospital, where patients needing such treatment from throughout Eastern Oregon could be served.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Argus Observes: “No evidence that athletes drank any beer”
By Don Lynch
From The Argus-Observer for Dec. 18, 1952
“There was no evidence that the athletes in question actually drank any beer,” high school principal Robert McConnaha told me Tuesday.
He was explaining last week’s incident in which several basketball players were temporarily suspended from the team because of their association with an alleged student beer-drinking episode. I had told him that on the basis of the information we had gained in reporting the news, it appeared the affair had been mishandled by school authorities.
Here briefly is what we knew of what had happened:
School officials permitted police to use an office at the high school to question students in connection with the sale of beer to juveniles. Thus the school became by association entangled in a problem that was not a school responsibility except in so far as the violation of athletic training rules might have been involved.
A few athletes were in the party which was said to have had beer in possession. Members of the team were consulted on their opinion and they voted unanimously, according to report, to drop the players, three of whom were first team basketball men.
Two days later the school officials announced that the players had been returned to the squad and said the incident was “closed.”
Many basketball fans and school patrons were concerned with the appearance of the whole affair. Dropping of the players certainly made it appear that they were guilty of some infraction. Their quick return to the team indicated they had received little discipline.
I was concerned along with other people. Tuesday I told the school principal so and sought a further explanation.
It was then that McConnaha explained to me that there was actually no evidence the athletes had participated in any drinking. They were caught in the familiar and often disastrous situation of “guilt by association.”
He further revealed that the school authorities did not overrule the vote of the team to suspend the players. The team members reconsidered their decision and came to the principal asking that the suspended players be returned to the squad, he said.
It developed, McConnaha reported, that the original decision of the team to suspend the players was based not on the incident in question but on a succession of grievances accumulated over a period of a year or so. On reflection, the voting team members concluded many of them had themselves been guilty of shortcomings similar to those used as a basis for suspending the players. They reconsidered and decided the players should be returned to the team.
This is all a somewhat involved situation and it apparently never occurred to the school officials that any further public explanation was needed. They felt the situation had been satisfactorily solved and the matter settled so no further comment was needed.
Normally they might have been right. They are used to handling similar disciplinary problems that occur frequently and never come to the light of public attention.
The difference this time lay in the fact that this incident had come to public attention by a mere coincidence. There was a story of police investigation of the alleged sale of beer to miners. At the same time a sports story noted that some basketball players had been suspended or alleged infraction of training rules. The two stories automatically fitted together and revealed an incident of apparent involvement of athletes in a beer drinking party.
I hope that this further explanation which completes the information will help to answer doubts as to how the matter was handled.
During our discussion “Mac” and I disagreed on one point. I thought it a mistake to permit police to use a school office for investigating an incident that itself had no relation to the schools.
The principal said he would rather have such an investigation run where he would watch it than under police questioning elsewhere. He thought that within the school the matter could thus be better handled for the youngsters involved. He also thought it might be good for the other youngsters to see how easily an apparently trivial escapade could come to police attention.
I doubt it. An unnecessary police investigation in the school --- upsetting the atmosphere within the school and coluding the reputation of the school through needless “guilt by association” --- seems to me to be more damaging than helpful.
But that is simply a matter of opinion. The important thing is that the public had only half truths for its judgment of the basketball player discipline, and then the incident was considered “closed” by the school men.
The public is entitled to know what goes on it its schools. When chance reveals half of the information in an awkward situation, the full information should be provided in order to clarify public understanding.
From The Argus-Observer for Dec. 18, 1952
“There was no evidence that the athletes in question actually drank any beer,” high school principal Robert McConnaha told me Tuesday.
He was explaining last week’s incident in which several basketball players were temporarily suspended from the team because of their association with an alleged student beer-drinking episode. I had told him that on the basis of the information we had gained in reporting the news, it appeared the affair had been mishandled by school authorities.
Here briefly is what we knew of what had happened:
School officials permitted police to use an office at the high school to question students in connection with the sale of beer to juveniles. Thus the school became by association entangled in a problem that was not a school responsibility except in so far as the violation of athletic training rules might have been involved.
A few athletes were in the party which was said to have had beer in possession. Members of the team were consulted on their opinion and they voted unanimously, according to report, to drop the players, three of whom were first team basketball men.
Two days later the school officials announced that the players had been returned to the squad and said the incident was “closed.”
Many basketball fans and school patrons were concerned with the appearance of the whole affair. Dropping of the players certainly made it appear that they were guilty of some infraction. Their quick return to the team indicated they had received little discipline.
I was concerned along with other people. Tuesday I told the school principal so and sought a further explanation.
It was then that McConnaha explained to me that there was actually no evidence the athletes had participated in any drinking. They were caught in the familiar and often disastrous situation of “guilt by association.”
He further revealed that the school authorities did not overrule the vote of the team to suspend the players. The team members reconsidered their decision and came to the principal asking that the suspended players be returned to the squad, he said.
It developed, McConnaha reported, that the original decision of the team to suspend the players was based not on the incident in question but on a succession of grievances accumulated over a period of a year or so. On reflection, the voting team members concluded many of them had themselves been guilty of shortcomings similar to those used as a basis for suspending the players. They reconsidered and decided the players should be returned to the team.
This is all a somewhat involved situation and it apparently never occurred to the school officials that any further public explanation was needed. They felt the situation had been satisfactorily solved and the matter settled so no further comment was needed.
Normally they might have been right. They are used to handling similar disciplinary problems that occur frequently and never come to the light of public attention.
The difference this time lay in the fact that this incident had come to public attention by a mere coincidence. There was a story of police investigation of the alleged sale of beer to miners. At the same time a sports story noted that some basketball players had been suspended or alleged infraction of training rules. The two stories automatically fitted together and revealed an incident of apparent involvement of athletes in a beer drinking party.
I hope that this further explanation which completes the information will help to answer doubts as to how the matter was handled.
During our discussion “Mac” and I disagreed on one point. I thought it a mistake to permit police to use a school office for investigating an incident that itself had no relation to the schools.
The principal said he would rather have such an investigation run where he would watch it than under police questioning elsewhere. He thought that within the school the matter could thus be better handled for the youngsters involved. He also thought it might be good for the other youngsters to see how easily an apparently trivial escapade could come to police attention.
I doubt it. An unnecessary police investigation in the school --- upsetting the atmosphere within the school and coluding the reputation of the school through needless “guilt by association” --- seems to me to be more damaging than helpful.
But that is simply a matter of opinion. The important thing is that the public had only half truths for its judgment of the basketball player discipline, and then the incident was considered “closed” by the school men.
The public is entitled to know what goes on it its schools. When chance reveals half of the information in an awkward situation, the full information should be provided in order to clarify public understanding.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Investigation of juvenile beer drinking begins; four OHS basketball players suspended from team
(Editor’s note: This running story comes under the categories of kids will be kids and some things never change. There will be another installment next week.)
The Dec. 11, 1952 Argus-Observer reported that Malheur County District Attorney Charles Swan asked the county sheriff and state police to pursue an investigation into “alleged beer drinking parties indulged in by Ontario High School students.”
On the same day, The Argus-Observer reported on its sports page that four players had been dropped from the high school basketball squad for “violation of training rules.”
Robert McConnaha said that the activities of 18 students, including five basketball players, were being reviewed in connection with the alleged beer drinking parties.
The investigation grew out of a state police arrest almost two weeks earlier of four juveniles --- two girls from Ontario and two boys from Payette --- who were discovered drinking beer in a car just outside of Ontario.
The only formal charge from that incident was filed against a grocery store employee for selling beer to minors. The juveniles were released to their parents --- the girls immediately and the boys after spending a night in jail in Vale.
The Dec. 11, 1952 Argus-Observer reported that Malheur County District Attorney Charles Swan asked the county sheriff and state police to pursue an investigation into “alleged beer drinking parties indulged in by Ontario High School students.”
On the same day, The Argus-Observer reported on its sports page that four players had been dropped from the high school basketball squad for “violation of training rules.”
Robert McConnaha said that the activities of 18 students, including five basketball players, were being reviewed in connection with the alleged beer drinking parties.
The investigation grew out of a state police arrest almost two weeks earlier of four juveniles --- two girls from Ontario and two boys from Payette --- who were discovered drinking beer in a car just outside of Ontario.
The only formal charge from that incident was filed against a grocery store employee for selling beer to minors. The juveniles were released to their parents --- the girls immediately and the boys after spending a night in jail in Vale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
