opinion_
Frohnmayer opinion
well-written, ironclad
The red folks in Rajneeshpuram (nee Antelope) have been
given their comeuppance by Oregon Attorney General Dave
Frohnmayer.
Frohnmayer recently issued an opinion citing Raj
neeshpuram in violation of the state and federal constitutional
guarantees concerning the separation of church and state.
The opinion, which took months of study, is well
researched, well-written and perhaps ironclad in its arguments.
Frohnmayer stated that based on the facts presented "Ra
jneeshpuram cannot be a city."
The opinion was requested by State Rep. Mike McCracken,
D-Albany, who questioned the legality of Rajneeshpuram receiv
ing state revenue-sharing funds. In Frohnmayer's published opi
nion Rajneeshpuram could not receive state funds because the
incorporation as a city violates the constitutional guarantee of
the separation of church and state.
Frohnmayer saw the "intrusion of the religion into city
government affairs" as "pervasive." This is definitely true. It was
only last year that the original residents of Antelope were all but
forced out of their city government by an influx of followers of
the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
Not only were residents of Antelope forced out of city
government, they were all but forced out of town by the Ra
jneesh. One might see the transformation of Antelope to Ra
jneeshpuram as a bloodless coup d'etat.
Frohnmayer's opinion predicts that if a court case were
heard they would regard the four entities of foundation, cor
poration, cooperative and city as one entity because of the in
terlocking nature. "The city," said Frohnmayer, "is the func
tional equivalent of a religious commune."
The response from the Rajneesh has been vehement and
predictable. Ma Anand Sheela, speaking to the broadcast media,
compared Frohnmayer to Hitler. But the response in phone calls
and letters to Frohnmayer's office from all over the state has
been 30 to 1 in favor of the opinion.
While no case has been filed based on the Frohnmayer opi
nion the University's Law School will be hearing the case in its
Moot Court. The verdict in the Moot Court case should be very
interesting — and may be a precursor to an actual case.
Genetic engineers
find valuable vaccine
So all this time people have predicted the dire conse
quences of genetic engineering, howling that it was the dawn of
neo-Frankensteinism, that fumble-finger assistants would flush
deadly genetic strains down the toilet and rats in the sewers
would grow to be as big as Volkswagens — but now what will
they say upon seeing experiments in genetic engineering may
have produced a vaccine for hepatitis, influenza and the most
dreaded of them all.. .herpes?
Before you jump into the unpaid for Mercedes and head for
the singles bar thinking a cure for that cold sore is just around
the corner, it will be at least two years before the vaccine is even
tried on humans.
The vaccine, developed by virologists Enzo Paoletti and Den
nis Panicali, has tremendous potential in areas other than
hepatitis, influenza and herpes. It may lead to a vaccine to im
munize children against common childhood diseases such as
measles.
The new technique inserts genes from the hepatitis, influen
za and herpes viruses into smallpox vaccines. This technique
lowers the cost of immunization substantially. For example,
hepatitis vaccine costs $100 per administration. With this gene
inserting a dose of hepatitis vaccine could cost as little as 30
cents per administration. *
But before herpes Type II sufferers think a cure is two years
off — the virologists believe the technique is effective only on
herpes simplex Type I. That's herpes Type I, not Type II — other
wise known as genital herpes.
However, once this vaccine is perfected the virolgists will be
working on a vaccine to cure sufferers of herpes Type II.
Oregon doily
emerald
The Oregon Daily finer aid ■« pu binned Monday through f n
day except during exam mid and vac attorn, by the Oregon Datty
Emerald Pubbthing Co., at the Univertity ot Oregon. Eugene. OH,
17X01
The Emerald operate* independently of the Umveruty with
officer on the third floor of the irb Memorial Union and it a
member of the Mroriated Prerr
New* and Editorial Mb4S 11
Dwplatf Adaerthmg and fcmeai M*-!7I2
ClataaMM Adaerrhing UMM)
I dil of
Managing f ditor
Newt (ditor
Attnljnt Nmt (ditor
(dttorial Page (ditor
Photo (ditor
Spoilt (ditor
S Kiel mu t ditor
I nienammenl (ditor
Attitianl (ntertamment iditur
Night (ditor
A hoc late Mon
Higher Education
Departments and Schoolt
Student (kivernment
Feature*
Politic t
Community
General Stall
Advrnnmg Manager
C tat titled Advert itmg
Production Manager
Controller
Debbie Howlelt
Sandy lohntlone
Frank Shaw
Brenda Thornton
Cort Fernaid
Dave Kao
Doug levy
lohn Mealy
Angela Allen Morgan
Kim Carlton
Corl Fernaid
Doug Nath
Melissa Martin
lim Moore
loan Herman
Brooks Oareif
Michele Malatsa
Darlene Core
Sally Oliai
Victoria Koch
lean Ownbey
letters
Eugenics
“The most merciful thing a large
family does to one of its infant
members is to kill it." (The New
Motherhood, Sanger). This quota
tion is taken from Margaret
Sanger, an athiest and socialist
who is best remembered as the
founder of Planned Parenthood.
Feminists generally revere
Sanger's accomplishments even
though her viewpoints gave rise to
"negative eugenics." This doc
trine encourages building a
stronger race by eliminating cer
tain characteristics through cur
tailing childbearing among certain
people through abortion, steriliza
tion, birth control and other
means. Some negative eugenic
proponents have gone a long way
to accomplish their goals. One
such person, Adolph Hitler, was a
supporter of this concept.
Positive eugenics should not be
confused with Sanger's concepts.
Positive eugenics has the goal of
building a better society through
encouraging people with
desirable traits (health, in
telligence, good character, etc.) to
raise larger families and insure the
increase of positive traits in the
next generation.
This latter view was supported
by Sir Francis Galton and Mormon
leaders as well as various Protes
tant clergy.
So, as eugenics receives more
attention with the rise in genetic
counseling, sperm banks, ovum
transplants and the abortion con
troversy, please don't confuse
Sangerism with the original con
cept of the eugenic movement.
Lori Parkman
Watt forced
In reference to the recent oc
curence in the Watt dilemma, I
feel that an important issue must
be discussed. This being the
means by which James Watt was
forced to resign.
Personally, I could not be more
pleased with the results of the en
tire affair. James Watt's political
philosophies and policies
disagreed with too many in
dividuals to make him an ade
quate political representative of
the people.
Politically, however, I find it un
fortunate, if not also ironic, that
the people largely responsible for
forcing Watt to resign should
choose such tactics that they
themselves have denounced in
the past. I am shocked that public
representatives would stoop so
low as to become character
assassins and muckrackers. In
short, the means by which Watt
was forced to resign did not justify
the end. Politicians who opposed
Watt wasted no time in seizing the
slightest opportunity to slander
the interior secretary. Once the
ball began to roll everyone and
their grandmother jumped onto
the proverbial bandwagon. Watt's
opponents could not gather any
other controversial evidence on
the interior secretary so they built
a mountain out of a molehill to
oust him from office. I myself find
it unfortunate that Watt's com
ments had to be propagated to
the extent of painting the man as a
racial and sexist bigot.
Watt made the stupid error of
compromising himself one too
many times. The knowledge that
he was opposed by many should
have been enough to make him
keep his personal ideology at
home. Watt stuck his own foot in
his mouth; let him get it out by
himself. The interior secretary
deserved to be removed from of
fice, but hot by the means in
which he was. Let the punishment
fit the crime. In this sense Watt
has been dealt an injustice.
Kirk Carter
telecommunications
State, federal
Your editorial on the Oregon
Court of Appeals ruling in
Willamette Week v. Bank of
Oregon contains internal
evidence suggesting why you are
concerned with a decision that
sets a simple negligence standard
for recovery in libel actions. Your
statements regarding the U.S.
Supreme Court's criteria for libel
cases are wrong, and demonstrate
misunderstanding of the relation
ship between federal and state
constitutional requirements.
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
(1974) the U.S. Supreme Court
held that the actual malice stan
dard was not required by the First
Amendment in cases involving
defamation of private individuals.
The Court left it to the states to
work out the appropriate standard
in such cases, subject to the
limitation that liability could not
be imposed without fault.
Many state constitutions, in
cluding Oregon's, guarantee a
remedy for injury to reputation as
well as providing protection for
freedom of expression. Oregon
courts must decide how the
sometimes conflicting values ex
pressed in those provisions of the
Oregon constitution should be
reconciled.
I am inclined to favor a more str
ingent standard than negligence
in defamation actions, though I
believe that the details of the stan
dard's administration are more
important than the summary label
attached to it. My inclination is
tempered, however, by examples
of cavalier treatment of facts.
Evidently the concern for public
opinion mentioned in your
editorial is not strong enough to
move you to check your factual
premises. Fortunately, the only
reputation at stake in your
editorial is your own.
lames O'Fallon
associate professor law
Life's tough
Those of you who find solace in
the misery and misfortune of
others should really get a bang
out of this letter. This is primarily
directed, however, at the Greeks,
the Emerald and Chris Anderson.
Have any of you martyrs stop
ped to think that there might be
one individual who has been forc
ed to bear at once all the burdens
you bear individually? Well, listen
to this. I am a Greek, I have been a
reporter for the Emerald, and I am
Chris Anderson's roommate. At
first I couldn't believe it was all
happening to me. I would make
excuses when I heard my fraterni
ty brothers announce that they
were going to blow off their
marketing midterms and get
messed up at Rennie’s. I pleaded,
"I’m just trying to gain practical
experience," when people who
say derisively, "Yuk, you write for
the Emerald?"
And most recently, I found
myself explaining "I'm sorry, but
she has a bad cold," when my
roommate claimed that my
girlfriend had plugged up our
toilet again. Sure, I have since
forgiven my girlfriend, but don’t
think I was too happy about it at
the time either. After all, I'm the
one who had to go down and ask
our aging landlord for the
plunger. I'm firmly convinced that
no other individual in the history
of Western civilization, save
maybe Betty Ford, has had to en
dure ail the suffering which has
been so unjustly imposed on me.
Michael Anderson
journalism, economics