EDITORIAL
Application of code
should be restricted
Most students are aware of tho laws that govern soci
ety and, for tho most part, are aware of the consequences
for violating them. What many students aren't aware of
(but should be) Is the University's Student Conduct Code
and exactly how it applies to them.
The code is supposed to “provide general guidance for
enforcing those regulations and policies essential to the
educational and research missions of the University."
Although tho University has a substantial interest in
ensuring students and faculty have a hospitable campus
environment in which to perform their duties, it should
bo questioned how far that interest extends.
The issue arises from tho recent incident in which a
non-student was allegedly beaten by a student off cam
pus. Some University groups have called for the stu
dent’s expulsion, and the University is investigating
what action it can lake, if any.
The fact tho University is even considering taking
action provides an example of the code attempting to
reach too far. There are already statutory penalties for
beating someone, and if found guilty by a court of law,
there is adequate enforcement of those penalties (in most
cases).
There is no Justification for the University to presume
itsoif separate from the law. yet there is nothing to pre
vent it from acting contrary to the law. For example,
even if a student is found not guilty by. a judge or jury,
there is absolutely nothing to prevent the University
from finding the student in violation of the code and
expelling him or her.
The only way the University could take action is if it
had a lesser burden of guilt to prove. A frightening
thought given the potential impact an adverse ruling
could have on a student — especially after being
declared not guilty in a real court.
The University’s authority should extend no further
than the interests of tho University. The code should
apply only to University owned property or University
sponsored or -sanctioned events. This includes Autzen
Stadium, Amazon and Westmoreland student housing,
and tho University Inn.
Although greek houses are not owned by the Univer
sity, they are sanctioned housing, recognized by tho Uni
versity. and should bo covorod as well.
However, the University claims it has authority over
incidents involving students off campus if the conflict
ing parlies are both students. The code specifically
states, "In general, off-campus activities of students are
viewed as (heir personal business."
Yet in the next sontcnce. tho University reserves the
right to act. independently, against any student who vio
lates the code off campus. Where the University’s inter
est lies in such matters is uncloar.
In no way do the independent, off-campus actions of
students (no matter how stupid) interfere with the Uni
versity's mission, which is the maximum extent to
which the code should apply
Oregon Daily
Emerald
The Oregon Daly lmil*) •* pubkahed daky Monday through Fndey during tha achool
vaa> and Tueaday and Thuiaday du'mg the wmmti by the Oegon Daily Emeiatd
PuW'yhmg Co Inc . at the Unmexdy o» Oregon. Eugene. Oregon
The Emerald operate* mdependemty ot the Unrverwty with othce* at Suae 300 0< the
fro Memonel Unron and a a member ot the Asaooaled Pteaa
The Emerald a private properly The umaarfui removal or u*e ot paper* • protecutabie
by >ae
Near* Editor
Editorial Editor
Oraphlce Editor
Entertainment Editor
Editor Pat Malach
Jake Berg E reel aura Editor Hope Nealaon
Martin feher Editor tat Editor Overt Janaaan
Jah Paalay Sport* Editor Dave Cherbonneer
f reya Horn Supplement* Editor Cadey Anderaon
Mlghl Editor Marlin Fraher
Aaaoclale Editor*: Tammy Batey. Stud**! Govdtnmrnii/Actiwties. Daralyn Trappa.
Commurvfy, Co*e*n Poreg. F*gh*r fuU'ahorv Autnrvslr them
News Start Scott Aryfce. Chatrter A»en. Malt Bandar. Juatm Brown. Sarah Clara. Dylan
Coulter Meg Dedolph Amy Davenport. Amanda Fart**. Teresa Ikintamger. U*a Kneelei,
lies Maun. Demran Met nan Rebecca Merritt. Sieve Mima. Tiltim Mueller. Tnata Noel
Mathew Schuster. t**n Shaw. KAchaet SfvndMr. fnc* Studemcka Marion Sudor. Uchete
Thompaon Aguiar Amy Van Tuyt. Todd WtPama
Oerter a! Manager: Judy feed Production Man agar: Mchete Host
Advertising: Tom leech. Sharon Vat Sales Managers Shewn Barren. Otoe Manager
jane Irota. Tereae itabee*. Ph*p Johnson II. Chn* Kano*. Jaramy Mason. Van V CTByran
II. GAan Oh. Rachael Tru* Anp* Widest. Brian Wuthern
Classified Peggy McGmn Manager Barry login. Sharon Sauve
Distribution: Rebecca Brooks Krati Van Gordar, Anthony Wynn
Busin*** Kathy Carbone. Supervisor Judy ConnoSy
Production: Ingnd White FVodlieeon Ccxvdnaaor Krotme Granger, dee McCobb. Stacy
Mach**. Jerwler Roland. Jenmter Sman. Ann* Stephenaon
Newsroom_MB-Utt Display Advertising..... .34B47tt
Business Office--JSMB1* CleeaWled Advertising-3S> MO
I
COMMENTARY
Projects will solve real problems
by Chris Ramey
and Rand Stamm
We write to rectify mis
conceptions about the
planned expenditures
from the parking fund that were
mentioned in the Emeralds Feb.
t‘> editorial.
Each of the projects — cov
ered bicycle parking, the reorga
nization of the traffic patterns on
i;tth Avenue (which includes a
visitors' information l»ooth) and
the re-striping of University
Street — is intended to improve
the safety of pedestrians, bicy
clists and drivers on campus.
At the same time, these pro
jects are responsive to fiscal
restraints and supportive of
long-standing planning policies
with regard to transportation
Many of these policies were
adopted in response to student,
faculty and staff pressure for
enhanced safety and a more hos
pitable campus environment,
especially for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
The problems these projects
will solve are real; they are not
going to go away, and they are in
need of attention, regardless of
the ( urrent or future financial
situation of the University and
the state of Oregon
Two of the projects — the re
striping of University Street and
the bicycle shelters — are por
tions of much larger projects
that address thelmprovement of
our bicycling system and the
greater utilization of our existing
supply of parking spaces These
are priorities that have been
identified by the Campus Plan
ning Committee and other
groups ns worthy of undertnk
ing.
The consequences of not pur
suing them are the continued
degradation of our overall envi
ronment They are froth aimed at
reducing the amount of new
parking that will have to he built
on campus in the future and
have been planned to Ihi as cost
effective as possible
At the direction of Dan
Williams, the University's vice
president for administration, the
planned gateway columns on
University Street have been
removed trom the project in
order to avoid the possibility
that they may be viewed as an
unnecessary expense in these
uncertain budgetary times.
Thu third project — the 13th
Avenue reorganization — will
solve a multitude of current
problems. First and foremost,
the visitor's booth will increase
the safety of bicyclists and
pedestrians alike by limiting the
amount of automobile traffic
that is allowed on this especial
ly busy part of campus.
Secondly, and equally as
important to the safety of all. the
street will Imj re-striped in a way
that is reflective of bow bicycles
and cars share the roadway
throughout the city.
Finally, it will relocate, in a
more logical position, the pla’ce
where visitors to campus can
come when they seek parking or
other information.
Chris Rainey is director and
architect for the University Plan
ning Office Rand Stamm is the
parking program coordinator ■
LETTERS
SeePage 1
In response to the fc'fiieroid's
Feb. 18 editorial: Requiring peo
ple to own guns would be like
requiring them to wear seat
belts. It's a good idea to wear a
seat belt, and it's a good idea to
know how to defend yourself
with or without a gun.
It's also completely unconsti
tutional to require ownership or
use of guns or seat belts, but that
didn't stop Oregonians from
passing the seat twit law. If you
want to expose yourself to dan
ger, nobody has any right to stop
you. But an argument was made
that seat belt avoiders cause
higher insurance premiums for
all.
Likewise, non-violent victims
increase the criminal-friendly
atmosphere of a neighborhood,
raising crime and police costs
for all. It would be nice if every
one owned a gun or were other
wise lethal. The only fault with
Liz VanLeeuwen's proposal is
that it tries to legislate good
sense.
Adrian Fields
French
No new taxes
President Clinton got one
thing right: He said jobs are tre
ated in the private sector. For
this reason, the more taxes col
lected in the private sector, the
less job growth there will be.
There has never been a tax
hike that improved the econo
my. For this reason, the public
should demand that Congress
cut spending to balance the
deficit instead of raising taxes.
The President has not pro
posed a plan that will end
deficit spending. Each year from
now on, under the President's
plan, there will still be a deficit
of S200 billion or more. Even if
the President gets all the spend
ing cuts he asks fcr. Congress
will still be spending more than
i( takes in. For this reason, the
national debt will increase and
interest on the debt will grow.
You are being asked to sacrifice
for almost nothing.
When are Americans going to
realize that big government is
hurting the nation by taking
away our ability to produce and
create wealth? When are Amer
icans going to turn their backs
on the two-party system that
brought us to the crisis we are
facing?
Isn't it time to find out why
the Libertarian candidate for
President, who was on the ballot
in every state, was refused par
ticipation in the debates? Maybe
the Republican and Democrat
politicians don't want the public
to hear Libertarian ideas for
change that seriously address
our national problems instead of
making them worse.
Toni* Nathan
Madia Coordinator
Libertarian Party ol Oregon