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.