Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 28, 1997)
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Steven Asbury MANAGING EDITOR: Thom Schoenbom NIGHT EDITOR: Ryan Frank EDITORIAL EDITORS: Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond J __ editorials, letters, commentary and perspective NEWSROOM: (541)346-5511 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: (541)346-3712 BUSINESS OFFICE: (541)346-5512 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: (541)346-4343 ■ OUR OPINION: Controversial issues such as abortion and same-sex marriages aren’t easily resolved Abortion. Capital punishment. Same-sex marriage. These are just some of the moral is sues that divide our nation and fuel today’s national debates. If there’s one thing we enjoy, it’s arguing about these issues and listening to oth ers argue about them. In too many cas es, however, talking about these con troversial topics is a complete waste of breath. Throughout our society, and at the University in particular, moral issues are the center of countless forums and discussions. People with strong opin ions on both sides try to prove the va lidity of their point of view. The pur pose of these debates is to both educate and spark debate. But the question is, are they at all productive? The answer depends on the defini tion of “productive.” If productive means the debates get people talking and think ing about these issues, the an swer is probably yes. If produc tive means they change the way people think about these issues, the answer, for better or for worse, Unlike debates over tax increases or foreign policy, issues like abortion cut deep into people’s moral backbones. Where people stand on important moral issues is not only a reflection of their moral belief systems, but also who they are as individuals. The moral beliefs that people hold have been developing over their entire lives. They depend on an infinite number of factors, such as who a per son’s parents were, where that person grew up and where he or she went to school. In short, everything that went into making up who a person is today helped shape that person’s moral be liefs. Given how much goes into form ing these beliefs, it’s not surpris ing that people are hesitant to change kV\\ them. For people to change their stance on gay marriages X or capital punishment requires much more than changing their mind on one particular issue. It requires changing their entire moral belief system; in essence, every thing that makes them who they are. It’s hard enough to make small changes in life. Changing one’s entire belief system is almost impossible. The sad truth is the very people who attend forums on these issues are those least likely to change their minds. Anyone who cares enough to show up has already formed an opin ion and is unlikely to be willing to change it. Even though the point of talking about these issues is to edu cate, the people doing the talking (and the listening) are not going to be per suaded by additional information. More likely, they will take what is said and either reject or accept it uaseu un wnai uiey ai ready believe. This is not to say we should not talk about these issues — we should. It is only to say that we should be realistic about what we will accomplish by talking about them. There’s no way that any one piece of information will change a person’s en tire moral belief system. If the point of a discussion is to get people thinking about these issues, it is probably worthwhile. If the point is to try to per suade, it will most likely be a waste of time. This is also not to say that moral controversies can never be resolved. Slavery was a moral controversy that once split the nation. Now almost everyone would agree that slavery is wrong. But this change in beliefs was not the result of a debate or forum on slavery. It was the result of a slow change in people’s beliefs from gener ation to eeneratinn It is unlikely that today’s moral controversies will be resolved in the near future. People should understand this and realize that, while talking about these issues is a positive step, it can only do so much. Talking about moral issues is reasonable. Expecting people to change their beliefs be cause ofitisnot. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emer ald editorial board. CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald Question not the content of these controversial characters PFC should focus debate on the Commentator budget OPINION Sctoentom As it happens every year, the ASUO Programs Finance Committee will hear the Oregon Commentator’s budget proposal tonight. And like every year, there will be a discussion of how offensive, immoral, racist and sexist the Commentator’s content is. It will not do anyone any good. The PFC cannot make funding decisions based upon how offended it was by the Commen tator. No amount of wishing, breath-holding, yelling or fist-pounding will change that fact. In fact, it would be quite a feat to cut the budget of any publication on campus that appears on a regular basis—based on content. The Commentator’s latest back page, this time on Ebonics, was another marvelous poke at the way other people talk kinda funny. Some classic examples from the feature: “May I have a light pilsner?” is translated to the Ebonic phrase, “Pass the forty, by atch.” However, the PFC must look past this re ally bad example of humor because in the end it is a question of content. Instead, questions about the Commenta tor at its hearing tonight must stick to these factors: Did the Commentator spend all of its money last year? If not, why? Did the Commentator publish on a regular basis? Did all the issues get distributed? Did the Commentator print all the copies it said it would? Has the Commentator done any fund raising? Questions that tackle subjects like hate speech and fighting words will carry no weight, even though the University’s poli cy is much more protective than that of Oregon and the United States. To have any chance of success in a campus setting, the University or ASUO would have to prove that hate speech occurred in the immediate presence of a specific person. Even if somehow the PFC manages to re fer the magazine’s budget to the Student Senate or the student ballot — as was at tempted last year — the ASUO Constitu tion Court would rule in favor of the Com mentator. Having its editor, Andrew Oberriter, on the Constitution Court will probably help. Attempting to send the Commentator to the ballot last year put the entire incidental fee process in jeopardy. By establishing a precedent in which the ASUO could arbi trarily decide which groups would face an all-or-nothing scenario in the ballot process, any group that became unpopular would be at risk. That is the beauty of the incidental fee process. All groups, regardless of their viewpoint, must be accepted. All that mat ters, funding-wise, is this question: “Are people participating?” And, oddly, that doesn’t really matter. Because even traditionally unpopular groups must continue to receive funding to further the marketplace of ideas that the University hopes to foster. There is simply no way for the Universi ty to cut publications based on content. If someone disagrees with content, they can boycott the publication, write letters, stage a sit-in or do something else semi-con structive. The University is a state-sponsored insti tution. The ASUO is sponsored by the Uni versity. But the Commentator is an inde pendent entity, and the state can only limit its freedom of speech in very, very narrow ly defined circumstances. So even though the latest back page is probably offensive to more than a few peo ple, there is nothing much the PFC, as an entity of the University, can do about it. Thom Schoenborn is managing editor of the Emerald and former editor of the Commentator. His views do not necessarily represent those of the newspaper. E-mail: tomswim@gladstone. uoregon.edu Corrections ■ In the Jan. 17 article on Univer sity President Frohnmayer’s freshman semi nar, the name of accounting major Gabriel Bayley was misspelled. ■ In the Jan. 27 issue, the photos of former vice presidential nom inee Winona LaDuke and Graduate Teach ing Fellow Christina Castro were switched. The Emerald re grets the errors.
