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.