▼ EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Steven Asbury
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
(541)346-3712
BUSINESS OFFICE:
(541) 346-5512
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
(541)346-4343
The Mac Court Controversy
_^_
MARK McTYRE/Emerald
Two sides of a deep divide
ONCE AGAIN, THE UNIVERSITY IS MAKING HEADLINES
all over the country. After ASUO President Matthew
Scotten and Vice President Glen Banfield made the
bold move of roping off 228 student seats at last
nights mens basketball game against Arizona, the reaction was
strong on both sides of the issue.
Banfield said the decision was made
in response to inappropriate behavior
by fans at McArthur Court this season.
Students, in their own response, have
come out strongly both in support and
in opposition of the executive decision.
We at the Emerald are no different. As
an editorial board and as a newsroom,
we are as deeply divided on this issue
as the student body. While our function
as a board is to formulate opinions
through consensus or clear majority,
coming to a conclusion on this issue
turned out to be impossible. We are
frustrated by this fact, but in truth, it
reflects the deep division on this
campus on issues of race.
We do feel a duty to present our
readers with as much information as
possible, however, and let them form
their own opinions. With an issue of
this nature, the ability to come to an
individual conclusion is especially
necessary. Many factors play into one’s
views on the subject, and groupthink is
not only dangerous (as always), but an
impossibility.
Here are the main viewpoints
expressed on this most volatile issue,
and in turn, any major problem on this
campus and how to deal with it.
PRO: The decision by Scotten and
Banfield to take away the seats was an
administrative decision by nature, and
therefore, was better executed without
outside influences.
CON: The decision that affected
hundreds of students was made by two
people without any input by other
parties, and is therefore highly
questionable.
PRO: Scotten and Banfield, as part of
their position, signed the contract with
the Athletic Department for the seats,
and therefore have the executive
privilege to take away the seats if they
see fit.
CON: The ASUO Executive has no
right to take away the seats, and in
essence, is stealing from a student body
that paid for the seats in question.
PRO: Taking away the seats is not so
much a punishment, but instead serves
to spur campus awareness and
discussion on issues of race,
discrimination and general attitude.
Other methods like Coach Jerry Green
speaking to the crowd and handing out
fliers on diversity will help accomplish
this.
CON: This decision is simply a one
shot publicity stunt that will have no
tangible effect on the student body.
Instead, it may backfire with negative
publicity and reaction. Other, more
long-lasting tactics are needed to
combat the problem, like changes in
curriculum or seminars.
PRO: While the racial slurs have not
been proven, the accusations by UCLA
Forward Kris Johnson cannot be
ignored. With the present environment
in Mac Court and on campus, the slurs
easily could have happened and
probably have happened.
CON: This whole action has been
caused by an assumed truth, unproven
accusations by one man. And no other
incidents of racial slurs have ever been
reported at Mac Court.
PRO: This action runs deeper than
just one incident of racial slurs. The
decision to rope off the seats was in
response to students' general attitude at
games, including homosexual slurs and
extreme taunting.
CON: The decision was an extreme
reaction to a single alleged incident
involving a small number of students.
The whole student body is being
unfairly punished for the possible
action of a few.
PRO: The lost section of seats will
send a strong message to students that
any inappropriate behavior at games
will not be tolerated. Seeing the empty
section on television and in print will
have a lasting symbolic effect.
CON: Controlling crowd behavior will
not come from symbolic gestures, but
rather by heightened security and other
more practical ways of enforcement.
PRO: Cheering the team on is great,
but extreme rudeness, profanity and
rushing the court after major victories to
taunt opposing players is immature,
dangerous and unacceptable.
CON: Racial slurs will not be
tolerated, but taunting the opposition in
an extreme manner is all part of the
college game, supported by the team
and is practiced by fans all over the
country.
PRO: Such profound action may
cause students to be more willing to
confront fans who are using
objectionable slurs and taking part in
inappropriate behavior.
CON: Students are not, and never
were, afraid to stop fans who were
involved in racist remarks or other
extreme misconduct. This makes the
alleged racist remarks unlikely.
PRO: The ASUO Executive decision
may make students think twice before
taking part in inappropriate fan
behavior in the future.
CON: Taking away one section of
courtside seats will do nothing to deter
the small number of offenders. If
anything, it will make them amplify
their behavior.
In short, these are the arguments.
Perhaps they will help you make up
your own mind. As always, we
welcome any feedback on this issue and
will try to print your comments. Speak
your mind and contribute to the
dialogue.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board.