Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 5, 1994)
EDITORIAL r Activists need pro-active stand After weighing tho benefits and the risks of saving Amazon housing for several months. University Presi dent Dave Frohnmayer decided to go ahead with the planned demolition of tho 47-year-old structures. Tho existing housing will be replaced with a new. 280-unit complex by 1996. Before rendering a decision. Frohnmayer considered turning Amazon over to a nonprofit, student-run coop erative. The cooperative planned to renovate the com plex and maintain relatively low rents. Frohnmayer made the right decision. The original intent of the prefabricated apartments was to temporarily house returning World War II veter ans. Due to constant demand and low vacancy rates, the University turned the complex into permanent hous ing. But years of haphazard maintenance, age and nor mal wear have left the buildings in an obviously dilapi dated state. Several of tho buildings have leaky roofs and severe plumbing deficiencies. Most have irreparable cases of dry rot and a majority of the buildings don't have fire walls to separate the opart moots. There are also concerns about asbestos and load paint. The Save Amazon Coalition, a group of students and community members dedicated to saving Amazon, should be commended for its efforts. However, to document its platform, the coalition relies on an "independent’* engineering report that says reno vation is possible. They disregard two other reports claiming that reparations would not be cost effective. The coalition argues that the decrepit structures pose no safety hazard and could be rehabilitated for S3 mil lion. The coalition further states that the cases of asbestos are isolated and new paint can cover the lead paint. The proponents of rehabilitation correctly say that a new complex will eliminate the already-strained, low income housing market in Eugene. The University has a duty to protect students and protect the state from lia bility concerns. By keeping the postwar housing, the University places itself in a dangerous position, wide open to lawsuits in the event of fire or a collapsing roof. When the coalition asked the state's auditing division last week to examine the University's decision to demol ish Amazon, the action was reminiscent of a small child throwing a tantrum. The purview of the auditing office does not include policy decisions. Hence, tho decision is made and won't bo reversed. The coalition's insinuation that Frohnmayer doesn't know what is going on In his own backyard is a slap in the face to a man with unquestionable integrity. He is the same man whom Amazon activists hailed as fair and open-minded before lie made the decision counter to their desires It's time for those trying to save Amazon to become more pro-active and constructive in their efforts. Resi dents could begin to find ways to lower the now rents, such as applying for grants or contacting alumni for donations. r Oregon Daily po eot m* fix*** o«igoni»?4cj Oregv* fWy t <» p*jt**»b«d Oatfy Mcwxiay »r»ough f’<ia> during ff># acfyx* yoa» and T wet-day and Thursday during Ih# *umm«' by lb# Oregon Da 'y fm#iA!d PutAthtfig Co . Inc a! th# Urvvwiwty ol Oregon, { ugarta, Oregon Th* tfrmakt Operate* rfx*«p«»>.>#n**y o* tN* Orvvartrty **tK. otfccat «l Sort* 300 o» lb# F rtj Memorial Union and <* a member ol the Attoct&ed Pr«aa Tb# £ *» pr*vai# proparty Th# unlawful removal or vine o? paper* it pro*#cutat*« by taw Edltor-ln-Chlef: Soto Managing Editor Editorial Editor Graphic* Editor Fraaianca Editor In Oapth Editor Uavxl mow Jo« itimood Jo« Paatay AUana Baum Ed Ktop*ar\*4*»n N*w» Editor Hntx* < a Msmrt Sports Editor Chns tAelr Photo Editor McMm* SfwxJk. Suppiomants Editor Tints No* Night Editor Than* Sm4h A**ociat* Editor* » '-orJarcn von Carp Oovmvr^n^Actr^^s. M*v ;;«*«*■* Edwwd* Com/nixvfy T Wany Smrtb EdtaaftorvAdtotfttffta&on N*w* Staff: lor Bdthn*** W-?*on Char. Amy Columbo. Tash* F*chan*ah*f Aba t ttomada. Pnmo Fontana. Cwtyia Format, Chnatopbar Fq*. Mart Garton. Gary Grata SaraT HarxtorftOrt. Krt» Mw»y. Tf*vor K**rn#y Adam Kmchar Ma'fc McTyt* Bar Mo«»us Anne KA.*«KW K.wrsftwJ Sbwrry Ran*y RottN R«st*vt*V It* SafcKXt*. P#ul V*n SfcM* K*m An-v. Dan*f W«*J Bnan Womack Ganar*! Manager Judy H.<*f Advertising D*r*ctof **»* Aa> Production Manager M. Roa* Advertising Ma-OO Cn*ng, Tony f t f nn Meaner N* v * Jo»*my Maa M< hd«i W Sarah Tom MeteisUMKli Ke«*ey W«ke« Classified (tacky Mr» Kant. Uv .»^ S»m T*a Tack DtHrlbutkKi: John long, ( mwv Rakoc/i. Regma /supra Butina** Kathy Carbon*. SqpervcaiOr Judy Connotfy Production 0*hAa McCobb. Product*** CooncJviafcv Shawm* Abate, Grog Davnond Tar* Gau*r*ey Brad Joa.v Jervv4*» Roland. Raft Thangv^f, Dayton Yee M«woom Button Otf»c« W6-S511 346-SSI 2 Display Advertising Classified Advertising 34*3712 346-4343 f#E*\EMDoft/AJg VOUQ state op the Aoopess r </OU H£LD ytXJft vsro P£N UP /#0 TME A/ft ^ ^ vtah. 7 r*u£ sriLucorir rmf h - • iQfty mr w g* , ■ OPINION Art displays exposure, debate Well folks, it seems that the curtain controversy of 1994 has finally, thank goodness, conn* to a dost* The 'Uncensored Celebration' exhibit {which was sponsored in part by the ACI.U) has loft tin* EMU. and hopefully the whole incident will soon fade from memory. The procession of idiocy which we hove witnessed has l**en great, even by the rigid stan dards of the University Hut besides a good laugh, the situa tion was serious enough to dis cuss in depth Let s start at the bottom line The curtains did not constitute censorship by any logical or thoughtful measure The obvious root of the word censorship is "i ensor." which, acjording to the American Heritage Dictionary, means "may prohibit what one considers morally or otherwise objectionable " The paramount word of this definition is "pro hibit." and in no way. shape or form was the art (I use the word loosely) prohibited from those who, pay attention here, wished to see it If the showing was restrii ted to interested viewers, then we would have had a clear violation of the First Amendment on our hands Obviously, this did not happen, so there should not have been a problem. Alas, this lining Eugene, them was. All of us heard the woof and poof from various campus organizations and individuals — that our homes would be next, our books would lie burned, and Dan Quayte would soon be the (ialactic Emperor of the Universe, taking a part in every major deci sion of our lives. This sort of asinine Oliver Stone conspiracy nonsense to which we have unfortunately become accustomed is always good for a laugh, hut it is serious also. Through all of the acrimo ny. the pundits forgot one impor tant fact: not every student on this campus maintains one homoge neous opinion. Some people. I kid you not, actually found the contents of Primp A. J. Fontana this exhibit offensive. They did not want it on public display. And, apologies to the special interests who think, toward the contrary, the EMU is a public place It is meant as a campus center for all students to congre gate, study or cundui t business of their choice As long as, and this is the crux of the issue, they do not offend others Lori McDowell. 2H. a linguistic s stu dent at the University who found the works offensive, was glad that the curtains went up However, she did not wish the works to be i ensured from the view of others She merely felt, and correctly so, that the drapes "showed respect for people who found it offen sive The curtains were perfect. Those that wished to see the exhibit were allowed to do so free of i barge or of hindrance, and those that did not were able to avoid it. To many, this was not enough. In last Thursday’s Emer ald. EMU board member, Jessie Frahs, said that the offended could merely “close their eyes and walk through.” Although many on campus would agree with Frahs, they are missing the point. Students in the EMU should not have to wear blinders in order to avoid offense, for it is meant for all of us Presumably, at this point in the column, disgruntled readers are going to sigh and com ment that people are offended by anything, so who. among us, should l*i allowed to define w hat is and is not offensive? Discussion about the exhibit creates a ludicrous argument We're talking about remote-con trol vaginas, not The Catcher in the Hye or Alice in Wonderland. Censorship has been a serious problem in this country. Admit tedly, to some extent, it still is. But if situations such as this are deemed newsworthy, the pub lic will find each more and more reminiscent of the boy who cried wolf. Besides the false cries of cen sorship. the curtain controversy also brought to light the ever growing hypocrisy of the "polit ically correct" factions of this campus. When concerned students wished to lx* shielded from pic tures which they found objec tionable in the LMU. they were called over-sensitive, conserva tive. old-fashioned and worse However, if u man opened a Play boy for all to see in the i-.MU, or played a 2 Live Crew album out loud, he would be publicly ridiculed and branded insensi tive to women, which obvious ly would lx* correct. But why the double standard for the people who found the artwork offensive? Don't they have the same rights as anyone at the University? Probably not, since they have l>een deemed out of the “P C." loop, and therefore are unworthy of protection and representation for their beliefs. This should not go unnoticed by us on campus. The selectivi ty of "PC.ness," us we have stem with this exhibit and in numer ous other instances, does a dis service to all of us. It is also unjust by any reasonable mea sure. People should be allowed to view what they please. Similar ly, none of us should lie forced to see anything from which we wish to be shielded It is astonishing that these two ideas are not allowed to work together It really shouldn’t be so diffi cult Perhaps if it weren't for the (XiA, the ACLU. and other ideo logical zealots needlessly butting into our lives, wo could simply allow everyone to do his or her own thing. Primo A I Fontana is a colum nist for the Kmernld.
