EDITORIAL
Vigilantes’ actions
reveal policy flaw
To the satisfaction of Wild West fans everywhere, the
time-honored tradition of lynching is alive and well, at
least on this campus.
But instead of a length of hemp rope and a low-lying
tree branch, today's lynch mobs are using Xerox
machines. Our modem justice system is replete with all
manner of rules, regulations and rights, and yet some
times people still feel the need to sidestep procedure and
take mattors into their own hands.
Tuesday morning, two individuals (one of them a stu
dent) took it upon themselves to distribute information
al leaflets outside of the classroom of Profossor Arnulf
Zweig of the philosophy department, and then proceed
ed to inform the students entering his class of tne sexu
al harassment charges that have been filed against him.
The University has investigated the charges, and
action on the mattor is reportedly "being taken." The
findings of the investigation are closely guarded. Indeed
the vory fact that there had been an investigation would
not havo been generally known had it not been for the
two women and their actions.
Their choice to tell students about the alleged findings
against Zweig was immediately described as ignoring the
principle of "innocent, until proven guilty ” On the sur
face. that’s how it appears. But consider this: At the Uni
versity, no matter what the decision is in a sexual harass
ment case, favorable or not, that decision will not be
publicly revealed. If a professor is found guilty, ho will
be quietly reprimanded, but students will not be
informed of the finding.
This case, regardless of its outcomo. points to a serious
problem with the University's policy in dealing with
sexual harassment charges. If students are not informed
about their professors, they will not be able to make
choices that are absolutely essential to their safety and
the preservation of their rights. The University has a
responsibility to reveal any decisions it makes thatdi
roctly affoct tho students.
No one is suggesting that there must be a full-page ad
in tho Emerald decrying all the infractions committed
by University staff, faculty and students. But the infor
mation should bo available to those who seek it — so
they’ll never have to learn the hard way.
The work of another kind of photocopy vigilante
appeared oarlier this week that, while unrelated to the
Zwoig case, nonetheless boars some similarities. In this
instance, flyers accusing a University student of rape
wore circulated anonymously around campus. The name
of tho accused student was highlighted in yellow, as was
his alloged offense.
According to the flyer, the victim of the rape had
decided not to press charges. But it was the intention of
tho flyor's author, who described himself as a "Con
cerned Male” and a friend of the victim, to warn other
women away from the alleged rapist. And. undoubtedly,
to gain somo satisfaction by attacking the accused in a
very public way.
Oregon Daily
Emerald
The Oregon 0*y Emerald a published d*>y Monday throutfi f**>"0 the school
year and Tuesday and Thursday during the summer by the Oregon Daily Emerald
Publishing Co . Inc , al the Urvuersrty ol Oregon. Eugene. Oregon
The Emerald operates independently oi the Utwersay with ohrces M Suae 300 ol the
Erb Memorial linron and is a member ol the Associated Press
The Emerald n private property The unlawful removal or use ol papers * prosecutable
by law
EdMor-to-CMaE. Jake Beta
Managing Editor
Editorial Editor
Oraphlca Editor
Fraalawca Edhor
CaHay Andaraon
David Thorn
JaftPatfay
Thor Watfwdan
Sports Editor
Editorial Editor
Slav* Mms
JsttP**hardl
Photo Editor Anthony Fomoy
lupplarwants EdHor KstySolo
Aaaoclal* Editor*: Scot Claman*. Student Gov»>nm»nVAct'v<tm. Rebecca Merritt,
Community. Rivera January H&m Educahon/A&wdrttron
Maw* Su«<: Dave Charbonneau. Mag Dedolph. Amy Davenport Mali* f.aid». Martin
Fiaher La*** Gadiano. Sarah Handaraon. Ar* HaaaaMahi. Edward Ktaptamtam. Vm Lang
laong. Trial* Noai. Elnabath Raan»t|arna. Lia Salcicaa. Scott Stmon»on. Staphan.a
Siuon. Suaanna Stattan* Julta Swenaen. MchaW Thompaon Aguiar, Kavrn Tnpp. Amy
Van Tuyt. Damai Wmt
Oanarat Manager Judy Rwd
Adverttalng or factor Mar* Walter Production Managar Mchel* Roa*
Adverttalng: Fretime Ban. Tataaa laabelie. Jaramy Maaon. Mrchaal Miilatla, Van V
O'Bryan II. Rachael Try*. Kalaay We* e«, Angie Wmdhwm
flaaatfirf Bec*y Merchant. Managar Victor Maya. Sen Tya lac*
Dtatrtbutton Brandon Andaraon. Graham Simpeon. Ed Tamtadge
Bualneaa: Kathy Carbon*. Supemraor Judy Connody
Production: Oea MoCobb. Production Coordinator Shawn* Abate. Greg Oaamond. Tara
Gauttnay Brad Jou Jennifer Roland. Natl Thangeyt. Clayton Yae
Bua«n*M Offlc*
_..344-Mil
_MMStl
Dfpisy Advertising.9ss-jnz
Ctssstflsd Advertising.146 043
I TMiA/K
WE’RE TURING
THE CORNER.
Mtu r«»*JO
'Ott; TM fv«K4u WCV.I
JO I w/f-l- KtOLOHGtA 0£
6 VOU» SLRVrC CS —
J
OPINION
Heroism at the wrong time?
Mark s Mklasd
Is preventing someone from
committing suicide an net of
heroism? The answer
depends on the way we regard
suicide
Last December, sophomore
Brian Wilson saved a graduate
student who reportedly tried to
commit suicide by jumping off
of the Autzen Footbridge. A
week ago, Wilson was awarded
a medal for heroism by the
Kiwanis Club.
Wilson said he acted on his
instincts when he saved the stu
dent. and "the rescue was some
thing that had to be done."
Although few of us have the
courage to act as swiftly, most
people would intuitively feel
the same desire to help someone
whose life is in jeopardy.
But was the rescue really
something that "had to be
done”? After all. the student
who jumped off the bridge had
allegedly tried to take his own
life, and Wilson forcefully pre
vented him front carrying out
his will.
If suicide is morally objection
able. then Wilson's action was
justified. If killing yourself is no
different from killing someone
else, then Wilson did. in fact,
prevent a serious crime from
taking place.
But if suicide is a matter of
individual choice, then Wilson
interfered with someone's free
dom. In that case, Wilson did
not prevent a crime, he commit
ted one.
To complicate the matter fur
ther. we all know that people
don't always act rationally.
Many of our actions are based
on passion rather than on reflec
tion. There's often a conflict
between our immediate wants
and our long-term wants For
instance, you might want that
chocolate chip cookie right now.
hut at the same time you might
want to get thinner.
It's the same thing with peo
ple who try to commit suicide.
Many of them are so emotional
ly disturbed that they fail to see
that there are other options
besides ending their lives. loiter,
when they get out of their
depression, they are grateful that
somebody prevented them from
doing what they thought they
wanted.
Following this line of reason
ing, some people argue that pre
venting a suicide is not only
acceptable, it is the only right
thing to do
Yet others distinguish
between what they call rational
and irrational suicides An irra
tional suicide is based on a pass
ing passion, whereas a rational
suicide is based on a deep
founded. well-grounded desire
to die.
According to Time magazine,
as many as half of Americans
favor doctor-assisted suicides.
While some people regard Dr.
Jack Kevorkian as a criminal
who should be punished, others
think of him as a selfless saint.
But if somebody who assists
in committing suicide is a saint,
how can somebody who pre
vents people from committing
suicide be a hero?
The truth of the matter is that
our society is very confused
about the issue of suicide. In
ancient and martial literature,
suicide is often portrayed as a
glorious and heroic act. espe
cially if the hero takes his own
life rather than surrender to the
enemy. Although the Bible
states that suicide is a sin. Chris
tians have been canonized for
committing suicide instead of
betraying their religious beliefs.
And who would contest that
somebody who gives her own
life to save another is a good
person?
The strange thing about moral
matters is that most people seem
to agree on the basic questions
of what's right and what's
wrong. Everyone agrees that
killing, stealing, child molesting
and lying are wrong, although
some people think that certain
misdeeds an? permissible under
extraordinary circumstances.
When it comes to suicide,
l«)th sides have reasonable argu
ments. One argument for allow
ing people to commit suicide is
that all people have the right to
decide the course of their lives.
On the other hand, one argu
ment against is that not every
one is capable of making ratio
nal decisions.
Hut let's put all the judicial
and moral aspects of suicide
aside fora moment and visual
ize a situation in which some
body jumped off a bridge and a
crowd of people stood and
watched, without interfering, as
the person was being swallowed
by the river.
Isn't there something that just
intuitively feels wrong about
that? Isn't there something deep
inside, something that cannot lx?
explained, that touches our
humanity and tells us that not
helping is wrong?
There is. and that's what
morality is all about: feelings.
Morality is based on emotions,
not on reason. To paraphrase
David Hume: If morality were
based on reason alone, there
would be no moral difference
between pricking my finger with
a needle and killing everyone in
the world. One thing is not more
reasonable than the other.
What Brian Wilson did was to
act on his gut feelings. He didn't
care if he interfered with some
body’s right to die. He just
jumped into the river because he
felt he ought to. because it was
something that "had to be
done.”
I don't know if that makes
him a hero. But I certainly think
he did the right thing.
Marius Meland is a columnist
for the Emerald.