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