_Editorial
Records amendment
not a joking matter
The University submitted an amendment to its stu
dent conduct code regulations Tuesday to dear up
misconceptions in the administrative rules used to
mandate open hearings in academic dishonesty cases
The amended version was originally expected to
go into effect today, but due to date miscalculations on
the part of the University, the amendment won't see
action for quite a while.
While the amendment has been sorely needed
and we applaud the University for its epiphany — we
can’t help but wonder about the University's sudden
change of heart .
The conduct code mandates mat an cases wm>M
ed under the student conduct code t»e open to the pub
lic; and to the extent necessary to preserve order, the
hearing’s presiding officer has the authority to limit at
tendance of people present at the meeting.
The amended version of the code, should it ever
come to light, specifically states that if prosecuted stu
dents do not waive their right to privacy »n writing, the
hearings officer is required to close the hearing to the
public.
Perhaps the only reason questions about the code
were raised was because VVilly Mils, a third-year law
student who had earlier filed suit against the I 'diversi
ty and law school dean for alleged privacy violations
concerning his academic: records, attended a recent
conduct code hearing to challenge the code's proce
dure.
The amendment, as it stood previous to date mis
calculations. was only temporary and would have
lapsed in I HO days The University administration
would then have considered the need for further rule
making after a thorough review by the Student Con
duct Committee.
What concerns us is what action the University ad
ministration intends to take; — not only immediately
hut when the amendment is allegedly set out in black
and-white. It seems as though the University was
caught in a quandary from which it had no other re
course than to amend the conduct code to avoid further
legal problems. If the University administration only
wishes to keep trouble out of its own backyard, how
much power will the amendment carry?
A student’s personal records should be protected
from public: scrutiny at all costs. The amendment
should've been in piac.e long ago. And now that the
paths iire i lear to set it in place, it had better be taken
seriously.
Rust takes a stand with spotted owl plan
Hardly anybody noticed his calm, ra
tional voict! in the continuing public outcry
over the old growth logging controversy, but
it was nice to hear that lame County Com
missioner )errv Kust took a stand in support
of the spotted owl.
At a sparsely attended press conference
last Monday. Rust outlined a plan that he
claimed would solve the spotted owl contro
versy. Actually, his proposal is not likely to
solve anything it is a sketchy plan that
has received little attention or serious con
sideration. Hut Rust's ideas do show that he
has a good, rational grasp on the factors in
volved in the issue. After the hyperbole of
debate, any voice of moderation is welcome.
Rust realizes that the timber industry
can only continue to log old growth forest
for so much longer, before either wildlife
preservation limits halt logging or there isn't
any old growth left to log. With these abso
lute limits, the commissioner argues that the
industry must make adjustments now be
gin logging second growth.
The end of old growth logging that Rust
warns of is not news. Environmentalists
have argued this point for years, and the in
dustry must grudgingly admit the truth of
the matter. To start the transition. Rust calls
for a federal appropriation of $10(1 million
over a two-year period to create jobs in sec
ond growth management.
Rust's plan is both common sense and
fanciful dream. Rust understands the issues
at work, but it is doubtful that the federal
government will allocate the funds Rust re
quests. It could certainly do so — there is an
annual sizable federal fund for the construc
tion of timber roads. The Rust proposal is
also very similar to proposals bandied about
by the National Audubon Office; these pro
posals have never been considered seriously
by the timber industry.
The local media didn't bother much
with the Rust plan, in part because the com
missioner's plain common sense just didn't
make good copy. Reason can't compete with
an infamous, histrionic sound bite like the
one aired from State Sen. Peg Jolin (D-Cot
tage Grove) last week: "And the spotted
owl...I think belong(s) in one’s frying pan."
We appreciate Rust taking a wise stand
on the spotted owl, and we wish everyone
were so willing to engage in practical dis
cussion as the commissioner appears to be.
Letters
Take a stand
I seem to recall reading about
someone who was going to take
a stand against "hate" crimes
recently ...
In the letter entitled "BS"
(ODE, April 17). I find that 1 am
being accused of "seeking
power and control rather than
the well-being of unwanted
children." because I take the
same stand as Bill Moore. I
search deep to find any motive
of controlling other people, hut
1 find none. Money is a prime
tool of control in this society.
So why do I give it to the poor
instead of hoarding it up to
mount an assault by which to
gain control? I must la; either
really stupid, or I must not fit
into the mold which Pain’s
word has positively stuffed me
into! Shi1 also says that it has
"proven presumptuous to be
lieve these types ... have mor
als"!
Thank you. Pam, for these
stereotypes whose roots lie in
an unfounded assumption as to
what I and all others of my
"type" (did you really say
that? .arghhh!) have done for
the "unwanted children.” I
cannot apologize for the actions
of those who have stood with
"pro-lifers” for the wrong rea
sons, laT.atise I do not stand
with them. They may share u
cause, hut that does not make
us the same "type.” Now,
where is that person who was
going to stand against hate
crimes'
Bob Weigel
l.ab technician
Keep to yourself
William Moore's anti-choice
opinion (ODK. April 13) asserts
as a fact that life entitled to
constitutional rights exists at
conception. Strangely enough,
the medical community does
not support this belief, much to
the chagrin of our highly re
spected religious community
It's hard to believe, but some
people in this country disagree
with the theory that a i hi Id ex
ists upon ejaculation and sup
posedly these people have the
right to believe as they wish.
Moore thinks that our right to
act differently from his accept
ed norm is not a civil right and
I question just what the hell he
thinks civil rights are all about
Maybe when Pat Kobertson is
elected president, we'll find
out
Moore's recognition of un
wanted pregnancies as "real”
is observant. I'm sure Moore
has researched contraceptive
availability and realizes how
well-accepted sex education is
in our public schools. There
fore. I’m amazed his letter
didn't address preventive preg
nancy measures, especially
how the white, male middle
class could educate themselves
on thi! effects of their sperm. If
you don’t believe in choice,
keep your sperm to yourself.
To Moore's question, do we
have the right to destroy inno
cent lives, even a pagan pro
choicer would answer no! Neg
ative stereotypes and poverty
ans too often the lot of innocent
people who struggle to support
children of unplanned preg
nancies, especially ii fathers
an* not responsible family
members.
Think about it. Mr Moore.
Are you interested in uphold
ing your principles, or inflict
ing them on other people?
l.auren Upshaw
Kugene
Society loses
In response to William
Moore's letter (ODK, April 13)
in defense of anti-abortion, 1
fool that his and others concern
is not for those "defenseless,
unborn children" but is the re
sult of an over-adjusted sense
of "moral reality."
Obviously the anti-abortion
issue has been a major conflict
for the past couple of weeks,
hut 1 think that the moralists
are missing the point, because
in my opinion, there is no way
anybody can justify (morally or
not) bringing an unwanted
child into the world to face
poverty, oppression and other
unsavory traumas which can be
avoided if women are allowed
to make their own decisions.
1 say the children are un
wanted because they are. Sure,
then* are always people ready
to adopt a new-born baby, but
if abortions are made illegal,
there will be too many babies to
add to tin; already large amount
of unwanted children (the
homeless) in our country.
When this happens, will all
those moral anti-abortionists
volunteer to he responsible for
these human beings' welfare?
Probably not. because the same
voices (anti-abortionists) crying
loudest to end abortion are the
same voices urging cutbacks in
the welfare system, child care
and minimum wage. Obvious
ly. anti-abortionists only care
about these lives while they are
still unborn.
In conclusion, I feel that the
anti-abortionists should con
centrate on seeing reality, in
stead of hiding behind their
morality, because the losers are
not only the women and the
children (after they are born)
but eventually our whole socie
ty.
Susan Price
Pre-journalism
_Letters Policy_
Letters to the editor must be limited to no more
than 250 words, legible, signed and the identification
of the writer must be verified.