editorial
4 jgj- ’ *
Sanctuary movement
stands for justice
We would like to think that the administration of Presi
dent Ronald Reagan would offer protection to refugees who
have fled political persecution in Central America. But
despite its awareness of death squad atrocities in places like
El Salvador, the Reagan administration has launched a
crusade to crush the church sanctuary movement and to
deny political asylum to refugees.
There are reasons for the action taken by the Reagan ad
ministration. First, it is the U.S. government that backs the
military dictatorships that Central Americans are fleeing and
second, the sanctuary movement and the refugees they
house have been critical of U.S. military and economic
policies in Central America.
However, despite the arrest of more than 60 refugees
(mostly Salvadorans and Guatemalans) last week and the
federal indictment of 16 people involved with the sanctuary
movement, church leaders have vowed to continue the
struggle to offer protection to Central Americans fleeing
military dictatorship.
We commend the efforts of the sanctuary movement to
stand up to the Reagan administration in defense of Central
American refugees. Although President Reagan has declared
that refugees housed by the sanctuary movement are fleeing
poverty rather than political oppression, the facts dispute
this assertion. Since 1980, Amnesty International, Americas
Watch, and other human rights organizations have
documented more than 30,000 civilian deaths at the hands
of the military in Guatemala and El Salvador. It is no
coincidence that almost all of the refugees housed by the
sanctuary movement come from these two countries.
The Reagan administration seems to be spending a lot of
time and effort to arrest and deport refugees housed by the
sanctuary movement, even though they make up only a frac
tion of the estimated 500,000 Central Americans illegally in
the United States. In the words of Steven Cooper, a lawyer
for the sanctuary movement in San Benito, Texas, “the
Reagan administration fears that having Salvadorans
around, publicly available to speak, will make the American
public more aware of the atrocities in El Salvador and the
U.S. government's complicity in them.”
Student search rule is
wrong answer to problem
It is being touted as a better way to bring down violent
crime in public schools and to get the drug problem under
control. But the recent 6-to-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court giving school authorities more power to search
students when there is “reasonable suspicion” goes too far.
The idea hinges on the belief that school officials will be
“reasonable” in determining what is susoicious. If thev are
not “reasonable” (whatever that means), then what we will
have is a legal excuse for school officials to harass students
and invade their privacy, bringing schools further in line
with authoritarianism and less with education.
This is not to say that students are innocent when it
comes to pushing drugs or resorting to violent crimes on
school property. But denying constitutional rights in school
that are guaranteed outside of school is not the right answer
to the problem. When reasonable suspicion exists, it is better
to call the police and get a search warrant rather than give a
free hand to school authorities to determine how, when, and
where a student should be searched.
Editor
Managing Editor
News Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Photo Editor
Sports Editor
Sidelines Editor
Entertainment Editor
Assistant Entertainment Editor
Night Editor
Associate Editors
Administration
Higher Education
Politics
ASUO
Student Activities
Community
Features
Michele Matassa
Mike Sims
Michael Kulaga
Costas Christ
Michael Clapp
Brent De La Paz
Sheila Landry
Kim Carlson
Mike Duncan
Michele Matassa
Jolayne Houtz
Michael Hosmar
Paul Ertelt
Julie Shippen
Stasia Scarborough
Cynthia Whitfield
Lori Steinhauer
Reporters: Sean Axmaker, Dave Berns, Robert Collias,
Diana Elliott, Thomas Henderson, Allan Lazo, Capi Lynn,
Scott McFetridge.
News and Editorial 686-5511
Display Advertising and Business 686-3712
Classified Advertising 686-4343
Production 686-4381
Circulation 686-5511
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published Monday
through Friday except during exam week and vacations
by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co., at the
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403.
The Emerald operates independently of the Universi
ty with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial
Union and is a member of file Associated Press.
General Staff
Advertising Director
Production Manager
Classified Advertising
Controller
Susan Thelen
Russeli Steele
Vince Adams
Jean Ownbey
Advertising Sales: Laura Buckley, Tim Clevenger, Jen
nifer Fox, Marcia Leonard, Rick Martz, Nancy Nielsen,
Laurie Nobel, Roberta Oliver, Brett Pickman - Intern,
David Wood.
Production: David Bryant, Kelly Cornyn, Storml Dykes,
Julie Freeman, Kathy Gallagher, Dean Guernsey, Susan
Hawkins, Ross Martin, Karin McKercher, Lauri Neely, Kel
‘ Neff, Curt Penrod, Tamye Riggs, Michele Ross, Alyson
mmons, Peg Solonika, Tim Swillinger, Colleen Tre
ne, Hank Trotter.
OiPWBNKSSER.
Stuoa of
iwaNiURy
' PAR T&O INTIMATE AlDSUSSESM ASWKE,#K.SHUU2—mmXHm, IP >tXl PtHASE!'
letters
Neglected
In a recent Register-Guard ar
ticle concerning the number of
foreign students represented at
the University of Oregon, I
noticed that the African
students (whom I admit are a
small number) were not
mentioned.
In the Emerald (ODE, Jan. 17)
there was another article con
cerning the number of foreign
students represented on cam
pus. Once again, to my dismay,
I noticed that the African
students were totally neglected.
Don’t the African students
(who actually represent a whole
continent) qualify towards be
ing part of the University’s
1,264 foreign students? How
come they have been
overlooked?
Regardless of how many there
are, is it only fair to give African
students recognition, whether
or not there are “business
links” with their home
countries?
After all, doesn’t each inter
national student contribute
financially and culturally to the
University’s environment?
Rose Shebero
Concerned foreign student
Peoples9 rights
“Censure” (sen’shar) an ex
pression of blame or disap
proval. To criticize severely; to
blame. Censorship is not a clear
cut issue as Mr. Siegal (pres.
ACLU) would suggest. One
does not have the right to yell
fire (the “spoken Word,” as he
so eloquently put it) in a crowd
ed theatre, any more than the
Marines have the right to yell
war in a crowded world. The
Marine protest was a censure by
the people of an authoritarian
power. As our forefathers
pointed out, this is not only a
right but a duty as a citizen. If
the people don't assume their
rights, the authoritarians will.
As Mr. Siegel pointed out,
history has been filled with
book-burners and goon (death)
squads supported, mostly, by
such uncensured fascists as
Hitler. Duarte, the KKK, and the
CIA. In 1974, with the direct
support of the CIA, General
Pinochet was able to censor
over 5,000 Chilean people out
of existence. Pinochet is still in
power because of military sup
port from the United States. If
you ever have the chance to see
a SNUFF film, a porno-flick in
which Asian women are literal
ly dismembered and murdered
with a pair of pliers, you may
realize that the issue is not black
and white, but white, male, and
authoritarian. People, take your
rights before they are taken and
used against you.
Tom Dierker
Eugene
Safety issue
I was walking around campus
with a girlfriend of mine last
weekend showing her the sites
and bragging about our
beautiful trees, etc. when we
passed through the graveyard. I
was explaining the prevalence
of rape in and around campus
and I mentioned how I thought
it was a shame no one had ever
installed security lighting in the
cemetery. (I grew up in the
country. We had a security light
which was bright as day and my
Dad used to mention how cheap
it was to operate.) It seemed to
me that 4 or 5 strategically
located lights could make that
area a lot safer for everyone. My
1 _
friend innocently asked, “so,
why has no one had it done?"
Frankly I didn't know what to
tell her. I mentioned I’d heard
rumors that the University
wanted to move the graves so
the area could be developed,
and that I had no idea who
could do such a thing, that is,
the city or the University.
I wonder, who would be able
to allocate (collect?) funds
towards such an improvement?
Why has nothing like this been
done in the past? Surely no one
would doubt the merits of such
a project, and think of the in
creased safety for everyone.
Who has the responsibility for
this kind of public work? Is it
possible someone out there has
the authority to bring about
such change and for some
reason isn’t exercising their
responsibilities? I wonder if the
Emerald would take this on as
an investigative project? I know
that those I have discussed this
with would greatly appreciate
answers to these questions.
Logan Dhonau
Psychology
Consistent
While you’re willing to de
fend the “right” to abort (kill)
children in the womb, you con
demn people who destroy
buildings where abortions oc
cur (ODE, Jan 16). You’re being
hypocritical. While I personally
oppose blowing up buildings,
I’m not going to impose my par
ticular values on those who
don’t share my viewpoint.
If you would take a similar
position you would be much
more consistent, and the basis
of your defense of legalized
abortion would be much more
valid.
Lori Parkman
Eugene
letters policy
The Emerald will attempt to print all letters con
taining fair comment on topics of interest to the
University community.
Letters to the editor must be limited to 250
words, typed, signed and the identification of the
writer must be verified when the letter is turned in.
The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter for
length, style or content.
Letters to the editor should be turned into the
Emerald office, Suite 300, EMU.