EDITORIAL Multicultural debate gets downright ugly The spirited, often times heated debate that has tak en place during the past few weeks concerning revisions to the multicultural curriculum requirement sunk to an all-time low last Tuesday. The Student Insurgent published a special May 11 edi tion dedicated solely to the University Assembly's vote-* to reconsider the revised requirement. The gist of the spo< ial issue was that all opposed to the revisions were rat ists. and although that may Hot be true, the Insurgent is entitled to its opinion. However, on the last page of the spot ial issue is a full page display labeling five University professors as racists. At the top of the page is headline that says. "Are they RACISTS7!' . Ask them." Immediately below that reads. "Faculty in Opposition to the Requirement And below that are the names, offices and phone numbers and class s< bed tiles of five professors Aside from the fact that the five opposed the revisions, not the requirement (which already exists), and that 205 other faculty also voted to reconsider the revisions, the Insurgent went beyond mere fat tual error by labeling the five professors as racists. Insurgent editors claim the page merely poses a ques tion and does not label the professors as racists How ever, given tho overall tone of the issue, including an Insurgent editor act using one of the five professors ol having a "white supremacist agenda." it is patently obvi ous the back-page headline is intended as a label, not a question. Although other ideological bouinl pumuations nave name-called movements and groups on campus, picking out five specific opponents and labelling them moves from expressing opinion to personal attai ks Juvenile antics of the Insurgent editors aside, the issue raises the larger questions of how the University (and, for that matter, society) enacts change. Every person who spoke in opposition to the revision did so for one of three reasons. Costs, ,n ademic freedom or breadth of the requirement, Not a single person sug gested revoking the race, gender and non-European requirement. Those questioning costs have valid points Can the University afford another requirement while enduring Measure 5-mandated budget cuts? This is a legitimate question and worthy of rational evaluation and further debate. Others wanted the requirement to encompass more than the four rac ial groups mentioned in the revision. This is also a valid concern. What message does it send to various ethnic groups when the University votes that, although they have suffered oppression, they have not suffered enough or the right kind of oppression to be part of the club. At first, those who raised concerns of academic free dom were accused of complaining merely about a "polit ically correct” requirement. But with the Insurgent's ugly name calling, the question is given new lifo. If the Insurgent is any indicator, what kind of freedom can pro fessors enjoy when they must remain silent for fear of being labeled a racist? What if the debate dealt with expanding courses in Russian history? Would the Insurgent have published a headline exclaiming. "Are they COMMUNISTS?!? ... Ask them?" Probably not. And if it had. it would immediate ly lie condemned by the University community — which has remained curiously silent so far. Oregon Daily Emerald the Oregon Darfy t m»*M .» put* shed darfy Monday through Today tXmng the school y«a> and Tuesday and Thursday during the summer by IS# Oregon Daily Emerald Pubtuhmg Co Inc al the University erf Oegon C ugane. Oagon I he Emerald operates independently erf the Unrversity »n Amanda Earn*. Anthony fomey Bath Hege Teresa t-Ainismger Rabacca Meruit Steve Urn Katv Meaner T.ttvv Mue«er Tnita No* E»en Shaw £f«a StudervcAa. Manon Suitor. Randy Theban Mcheie Thompson Agmar. Amy Van Toy-: Todd Clayton Vee Oenaraf Man agar: Judy R*ei» Production Manager: Mchaia Rosa INNWfORK A KIP, P0SIN6 AS A AAOTORMAN .STOLE k Su&VAY TRAIN AND PROVE IT ALLO*K HELL AND GONE. SlfAllARLY, IN WASHINGTON,... COMMENTARY Celibacy is valid lifestyle choice By Bob Weigel uringthc past few months I have bean < i i ^ tutting mj 1 J disgust over tin* publish mg of ii very brief loiter to the edi tor. I tried to reason with all of those involved but found no one able to hear Perhaps the students and family who read this will demand the Emerald editors lie field an ountahle for disregard ing their own polii ins and play ing games with tlie inone\ they are allocated I or tfiose who don't know, the Emerald does not normally pub lish letters that are dins t attai ks on (M'rvms or group lifestyles For example, il I were to write a let ter in which I said "Oh come on, (name of a gay person), you aren't really gas. an- you?" and that let ter got published under the title "You i an't lie serious." what do you think would have happened ' After all, il I were to say "1 was |us! amazed that lie said he was gas." that might excuse my action, hut it doesn't excuse the editor who is supposed to lie aware of the fact that many peo ple are gas, and that such a letter would lie held as a direct attack on that individual and his or her lifestyle. Well, people, that is analogous to w hat happened months ago. and not one of you screamed for my defense. My lifestyle is urliba cy before marriage. Andrew O'Connell, in response lo my let ter {ODE. Jan. 27). said "Come on Bob. no sex?” {ODE. Jan. 29). The Emerald printed it and titled it "You can't he serious." Why isn't anyone on campus speaking up for me? Are people really surprised that someone is abstaining from sex here in this society? I can see where a person might be sur rounded by people who give their bodies awav to others who have no real commitment to them, but they really think there actually is no one who is abstinent? But an editor? Is that the aware ness of the Emerald's editing staff? Are they really that igno rant of the diversity of lifestyles that actually exist here in Eugene? 1 doubt it. But us I spoke with the person responsible for letting Andrew's letter be print ed, all he could say was “I think he was just surprised that you said that (no sex)." Isn't that amazing? Any of you super intel Its ts see a fallacy here' So how about this? Is it OK with everybody if people openly make fun of celibacy, ns was done on full-page ads in the Iwu.k of the Emerald in-fore the elw lion Inst vear. (For those who may hove missed it. the ad prompted pro choice people to vote so they could have abortion on demand, rather than being responsible with their sexual urges The last line said ”... of course, there's always celibacy!"! What poor person wrote that? They openly make fun of my lifestyle ns though it is inferior to theirs Meanwhile, thus encour age people to vote so they can kill the ivsults of their uncontrolled lust. Rather than having sex. I show people love by helping take care of their needs like food, shelter, spiritual and physical well-being It is something that changes their life for the better I get financial ly poorer for doing it, and odd ly enough, it doesn't find me all tiint many real friends (in com parison to the number of people who trv to misuse the help I offer). How dare any of you compare a lifestyle whose very focus is fruitless self-gratification with a lifestyle of celibacy. Yet which one are people defending'' How strange Did I hear someone say. "But it's you. Boh. who have been bringing hatred against gay peo ple for years”? Well. I say. "You bigot." You don't even know the personal sacrifices I have made for people who arefwere gay and the absolute lack of persecution I have offered Now you pro-judge me and classify me according to my lifestyle, rather than getting to know me. Anyone who has hated another for prejudice and now has judged me in this man ner must hate themselves also. Above Andrew's silly letter yvas one that basically said, "If Rather than having sex, I show people love by helping take care of their needs like food, shelter, spiritual and physical well being. people art* not it potentially pro ductive memlier of society, they’d might its well be killed because we have enough quantity " What most of us today have forgotten is that many will never achieve because there was not one person to show them love. I certainly haven't felt very loved these eight years as I walk down sidewalks and hear women say things like "I hate men" in response to the seldom-returned smile 1 try to give everyone, regardless of gender, rai e or the initial look he or she gives me. Bigotry is very prevalent, isn't it? It's not the evil that changes, it's just the group that is subject to it And all of the time it's the same Ignorance at the root - an ignorance that makes me and oth ers "guilty" for the sins of my race, family, sex and religion What a sad people we have become, a people without a vision, without discernment. Instead of responding with a worthless sarcastic response, why doesn't someone try directly rea soning with people they disagree with? Or do my opponents not have the same hope and love for me that I have for them? (As though I haven't felt the cold shoulder that would freeze my tears should I cry on it lung enough to know that answer already.) Bob Weigel is a lab technician at the University. COMMENTARY POLICY The Oregon Daily Emerald welcomes commentaries from the publjc concerning topics of interest to the University community. Commentaries should he between 750 and 1.000 words, legible, signed and the identification of the writer must be verified when the letter is submitted The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter for length or style.