Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 7, 1994)
True power carries serious obligations The flap concerning EMU Director Charles "Dusty" Miller's decision to erect curtains in the Art Gallery for the “Uncensored Celebration" continues. Last week, the EMU Hoard of Directors passed a motion directing Miller to remove the curtains he uni laterally ordered put up in September. Miller subse quently appealed the ruling to University President Dave Frohnmayor who overruled the board's decision. Thus, the curtains remained until Oct. 4. well past the sched uled end of the controversial exhibit. On Tuesday, the hoard passed another resolution attempting to limit Miller's ability to take such an action again. The original resolution was so broad that Miller would have had to gel permission to clear the building in the event of a fire. The amended version allows him to make common on-the-spot decisions required of any profes sional manager in any type of business. The crux of the resolution, the entire controversy in fact, lies in the board's real power to guide EMU policy and provide Miller with a general direction in which to conduct daily business. Is the board recognized as a legitimate policy-making body? If so, why was Miller's decision allowed to stand? While the board, at least on the surface makes policy, those decisions go up the hierarchical ladder to rest on the desk of Frohnmayer, who holds ultimate authority on any policy decision made by students, staff and fac ulty. This is especially true in the case of highly contro versial matters involving the EMU's consuming public. Only one other time in recent history has a University president overruled the board on a policy decision. That was in 1990 when Paul Qlum, former president, vetoed the board's decision to prohibit military recruiters from the EMU. Glum made the right decision then because the action was discriminatory and probably illegal. Whether Frohnmayer's decision via Miller was tho right one is not the issue anymore. Tho exhibit is over. Hut will he again ignore the direction of a recognized policy-making body? Probably not. This was an extreme case presenting sexually explicit subject matter, the argument of exactly what constitutes art aside. The idealistic students on the board must realize their power is real only so long as it is used responsibly and with a heavy doso of pragmatism. With authority comes certain obligations to maintain an atmosphere where everyone can feel comfortable. Despite the way "things should bo," thero is always an element of accountabili ty with each and every decision. To bring the curtains down would have had sparked controversy similar to the controversy that leaving them up caused. In the future, the director of the EMU and the presi dent of the University must allow students, staff and fac ulty to assume the authority vested in them as legitimate policy makers. And once given that power, those who hold it must ho accountable for their decisions. Oregon Daily Emerald po bOi m* cix.im ofifGOf«%?4co 'h# < kagcvi new ( rn«ra*T is pubhshed daily Morvlay through f ivley during the hum yea' and Tuesday and Thors Jay dufmg th* iu*iw by th# Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co . Inc . al me University of Oregon. E ugene. Oregon The Emerald operates independently o' the University mfh offices at Suae 300 ot the f rb Memorial Umon and » a member of the Associated Pres* Tha f marakj is private property The unlawful removal or u»e of paperi u prosecutsb** by tear Managing Editor Editorial Editor Qrepfilce Editor Freelance Editor In-Oepdt Editor EdHor-tn-Chlef Kary Soto Dead Thorn Jo# Haneood Je« I’aaiay Atom* Baum Ed Kioptanatvn Ha aa Editor Sports Editor Photo Editor Supplements Editor Night Editor Rebecca Mer'itt Chna Meu Mchaaf SrwxSar Tost* Noel Kafy Solo Associate Editors: I nedanch von Carp. Sfujenf Government Actrvreear Marcerana Edeeds. Commurvty T.ttany Smith, fagher fdUc*honArtmin»sfrelton Naas Stall: Ion Beninese Wilson Chan, Amy Cotumbo. Tasha Eichansahar. Aba Eabmade. Ehtmo Fornana, Gayta Forman. Christopher Eos. Man Garton. Gey Grass. See Henderson, Knt Henry Trevor Kearney Adam Kvxhe. Mark McTyre. Ban Moebrus. Anna Muse KomteM. Shery Ramey EtoMse Reeves Ua Safcxna Paul Vp> S*SUe Km Wans Dsnel West Brian Womack General Manager Judy Fbect Advartlalng Director Mark Waiter Production Manager: Ucheve Eloas Advartlatng. Marco Chmg. Tony Eos. E'm Etorsnar. N«m Hartmark. Jeremy Mason Mchaet MMefte Sarah Macbao. Tom Mrttarstaadt. Kersey Wakes ctasamad Becky Merchant Atanagar 5m Tie Tack Dtstrtbutlon John Long, Ferenc ELssoct Etegma ZsupnA Bualneaa Kathy Carbone. Siparvsaor Judy ConnoSy Production. Dahlia McCottb. PlodliCPon Coot*utor Shewns Abate. Greg Desmond. Tara Gaultnay. Brad Joss. Jennifer Rotund Natl Thangvyif. Dayton Yea Naararoom ___J4SU11 Display Advertising _ .>t«-}71] Business Orttca. 346-331] C la ear had Advertising. 344-4343 Simpson Juror Questionnaire, Ar«. you easily su*y«^l by press reports ? Can you Cairly avaluatt ev/uieifc*. that runs against tim t jde of public opinion ? UJh*f u Co- ? Rave you ever b«e.n tejnpted to ilit ah enemy's throat ? Row voould you feel aloout a deadlocked jury? rs. kta/iul' If you were the last vcte needed for a verdict, ho*j would you handle it? fc/i. t±o€A ctjX. §<rl. /rrutf-t rtTwne/t^. ' .. I YOO'Q£ HOT 0W*LlF/£0 R>R jt/ftv Dvrv, Bt»r mav£ v**-' GD^SlOEfiED C0HOZ6H .incu r^K Ai/£ Vt*^ i i/KKj / l? Mr? *>» ill **9U li ■] »•***%<« *HW{ * . THE BILL <( CLiAiratj Ji/iV' I OPINION No thirsty desire for O.J. left Who do you think the most powerful person in the nation is right now' Bob Dole' Bill Clinton' Jim tny Carter' Kush l.imbaugh? Hillary Rodham Clinton ' Alan Greenspan' Good guosses, but you'd still l>e wrong No, the most powerful [Hirson in this great i ountry of ours right now is Superior Court Judge l-flnce A llo. Yes, he will have, in his hands right now, the deci sion that will change the course of many Americana' lives whether they'll put off early Christmas shopping, whether they’ll cane if we go off to war, or if they'll vote ! u monumental question, which could change our lives, is "to televise () ( or not to televise O.J ?" The trial, which is set to begin in November, will saturate our lives and could immerse us even more if Ito decides not only to let us watijt 27 hours of reports on the hearing, hut also to let us watch it live. Judge Ito is by no means stared of the media He's already sen tenced the second largest paper in the City of Angels to merely pretrial hearings, but not the big dance They were one of only four newspapers with permanent seats The judge was worried al>out a leak that detailed a ques tionnaire for jurors. He even kicked out the pool of television cameras from the court hallway botause they broadcast ed the faces of jurors in other cas es. So what if he does?! Before I give you my opinion on this court skirmish, let me say that I have a hard time even car ing what happens. I cared for a while Maybe two weeks or so. But the onslaught of coverage that berated the public has driven me to indifference. It's like hearing a song on the radio that you like. But the radio station finds out that you like it. along with too many other [h*o ple. So it plays the song enough to push any hardened criminal into repentance, admission or Brian Womack whatever it takes to just turn it off. 1 didn't even want to hear the two-letter combination, O.J. For a while, at McDonald's I'd have to ask for that drink that comes from a popular common fruit from Florida My turning on the news to find Connie Chung telling me that a bloody glove was taken every where in I. A by some guy. who waited for a long time for O.J. to get out of the shower, incited me to find more interesting things to do So I flipped the channel to the Home Shopping Network. I thought that the coverage would calm down between the accused’s court appearances. Instead, I have to work my way past the O | pages everyday in the paper, dodge commercials that tell me to just dial 1-800 MORF OJ and try to find Nation al Review stuck behind some copies of the "OJ Monthly." What's wrong with you peo ple f Are you that bored? Have you given up hope of ever hav ing a life? Why do you care if O.J. went for a Big Mac on the night of the murder? Is it Robert Shapiro's hair? What's with you people? I will say that I do care if O.J. •s guilty of killing Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend. Ronald Goldman Murder is a serious offense and should be followed by capital punishment. But why must we be so obsessed with this trial? It has no bearing on 99 percent of us. If O.J. committed a double homi cide. he should bo prosecuted. But he doesn't have the power to kill any of you, so why worry about it? Have vve, in America, become so obsessed with celebrities that reality is something we have a hard time differentiating from television? People, O.J. Simpson is not the pope or Hitler. He’s just an inc redible athlete. Michael Jack son and Lisa Marie Presley are not Bill and Hillary Clinton. Oprah Winfrey is not Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 'Iliore are other things in life to concern yourself with that are actually important, money for tuition, abortion, taxes, or the rise of communism in Russia. Wise up people. Life is short. I-earn hard. Immerse yourself in things that matter. After reading all of this, you may be wondering how I could care about a few cameras that might show up in the most pop ular courthouse in California. The reason is that so many peo ple will either be watching this trial or lending their normal lives. Some residents in California are worried that the O.J. case will dramatically reduce voter turnout. Usually I'm for the free flow of information that will help to open the eyes of the public first hand as opposed to media-fil tered As long as the issues are clean enough to be shown on daytime television, I believe more information can only help the average American. But the average American has become so brain-dead, and his voting decisions are threatened by this trial. So I must say for the O J. case, that I'm against it. A circus atmosphere somewhat lias formed as the media has cov ered this story. More coverage can only increase that atmos phere. A recent poll found that there is a 2-1 margin among American adults who believe O.J. is guilty. So maybe we should just skip to the sentencing. Brian Womack is a columnist for the Kmerald
