EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
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
,SEX,
abstinence
& government
■ OUR OPINION: Abstinence-only
programs are unproven and fail
to deal with the reality of todays
teenage sexual activity
* | ^here’s no getting around the fact
that people are having sex. And a
JL- tween teenagers outside the con
fines of marriage. It’s been going on for
years, and the federal government wants it
to stop.
Just how much is stopping young people
from having sex worth to the U.S. govern
ment? Apparently at least $250 million.
That’s how much President Clinton an
nounced he would spend on an abstinence
program aimed at teenagers in an attempt
to discourage premarital sex. The program
was created in response to high teenage
pregnancy rates that are perceived to be a
major cause for young people receiving
welfare.
The program will exclusively promote
waiting until marriage before engaging in
sexual activity. Because it seeks to show
sex outside of marriage as "unacceptable,”
there won’t be any discussions on how to
use a condom, birth control or any other
form of sexual protection. It’s abstinence or
nothing.
It’s not hard to understand why the gov
ernment would want to promote absti
nence in the first place. In today’s world of
STDs and teenage pregnancies, there is no
doubt that the safest sex is no sex. Unfortu
nately, in today’s world, expecting all
teenagers to wait for marriage is unrealistic
to say the least.
The government estimates that 56 per
cent of females and 73 percent of males
have sex before they reach the age of 18.
That’s the reality, and any sex education
program must deal with that. People who
lot of that sex is taking place be
have chosen to become sexually active
won’t be able to relate to a lecture on the
importance of waiting for marriage. Not
only will an abstinence-only program be
ineffective for teenagers who are already
sexually active, it may actually be detri
mental.
Programs that preach only abstinence
and ignore the fact that teenagers are hav
ing sex do not give sexually active young
people the information they need on sexu
al protection. If teenagers choose to have
sex, we have a responsibility to give them
information on how to have safe sex. An
abstinence-only program would not pro
vide these facts. Instead, teenagers who
still decide to have sex will run an even
higher risk of teenage pregnancy and STDs
— the opposite effect the program is
aiming for.
The biggest problem with implementing
a large-scale abstinence program is that
there is no evidence that such a program
will have any effect at all. Just because the
government is spending millions of dollars
promoting abstinence doesn’t mean any
one will listen.
There have been no conclusive studies
that indicate teaching abstinence changes
young people’s sexual behavior. The gov
ernment seems to be under the impression
that if they spend enough money on a pro
gram, teens will listen. With all the factors
that influence people to have sex in the
first place, this kind of thinking isn’t realis
tic.
If promoting abstinence is a national pri
ority, why not find out if these kind of pro
urmio nuiuniraoura/cmeraiu
grams work before dumping $250 million
into them? Before implementing a nation
wide program, it would help to have some
evidence that the program will work.
Start small. See what effect an absti
nence program has at local levels first. If it
can be shown to have a positive affect on
the choices young people make, then con
sider implementing a larger program.
But to rush forward with an abstinence
program without taking into consideration
the reality of young people’s sexuality is a
mistake. Implementing an unproven pro
gram will lead to more harm than good.
Even if abstinence is the goal, the absti
nence-only program isn’t the solution.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board.
LETTERS
Hold corporation’s responsible
Given President Frohnmayer’s role in and
recent comments regarding the University’s
housing officials refusal to pull Garden
Burgers from the menu, it appears that he
needs a lesson in the structural nature in a
participatory democracy.
President Frohnmayer was quoted in the
Feb. 18 Emerald as stating, “if the Universi
ty makes a choice for all students, it re
moves the student’s own ethical responsi
bility to define the situation and make
choices.” The individual students, as well
as the community at laige, have defined the
situation and made a choice. No to exploita
tion! Yes to worker rights! Yes to the Gar
denBurger boycott!
In a participatory democracy, individual
citizens, engaged in collective action, define
and shape the values and norms upon
which society is based. It is the role of orga
nizations in civil society, like MEChA and
its supporters, to relay the collectively de
fined values and norms to the institutions
and the state that serves them.
It is then the institution’s responsibility to
O
reshape its policy so that it is in agreement
with the values and norms that civil society
has democratically constructed, not as
Frohnmayer suggests to “be politically neu
tral.”
Frohnmayer’s arguments are a continua
tion of the dominant economic and politi
cal trends that have placed corporate prof
itability and the market outside of
community notions of social responsibility.
Frohnmayer may believe in a technocrat
ic neoliberal democracy grounded on atom
izing individual property rights, in effect,
surrendering the ordering of community
norms and values to the invisible hands of
the market.
But we argue that citizens must be al
lowed to organize and hold their institu
tions and corporations accountable to a
higher level of standards. A level of stan
dards that guarantees the workers’ rights to
organize, protects the environment and pro
motes economic and social justice for all.
Eloina Gonzales
Daniel Zettler
CISCAP Mexico Interest Group
Support human rights
Beggars can’t be choosers. You’ve heard
this expression before. Why someone with
so little should question what is being giv
en to them is incomprehensible to many of
us. It is as though the “beggar” should be
grateful for the charitable offering and
thankful for being noticed in the first place.
However, the expression mentioned
above is about who has power and who
doesn’t. It’s about who makes decisions and
for whom. It’s about why some people are
not poor and why many are (36 million as
of 1995).
The remarks by University President
Dave Frohnmayer in the Feb. 18 Emerald re
garding the push to get GardenBurger off
our campus parallels the nature of power re
lations implied in the above saying.
That the University abstains from making
decisions which students can (allegedly)
make is a short-sighted remark. In fact, de
cisions made by student organizations re
garding curricula, faculty hiring, admis
sions, housing and so forth are either
overlooked by the University’s administra
tion or given lip-service.
What students are asking the University
regarding GardenBurger boycott is nothing
new. There is an entire history on this and
other campuses across this country. Simi
larly, what farmworkers in the state of Ore
gon are asking is nothing new. Yet this Uni
versity, as of now, wishes not to make a
social pact that supports dignity and self-re
spect, better known as human rights.
The commemoration of Martin Luther
King Jr.’s birthday brought to bear the coun
try’s track record on civil rights. But how
can we continue to talk about, much less
struggle for, civil rights when human rights
are violated right in our backyard?
It is unfortunate that University’s Hous
ing officials are unwilling to pull Garden
Burger from its menu when veal was re
moved after a compelling campaign.
Human rights versus animal rights? That’s
a sad commentary on our education when
these two are pitted against each other.
Sergio Romero
GTF, Sociology