Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 21, 1997)
▼ EDITORIAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Steven Asbury MANAGING EDITOR: Thom Schoenbom NIGHT EDITOR: Nicole Krueger EDITORIAL EDITORS: Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond \ iimi editorials, letters, commentary and perspective NEWSROOM: (541) 346-5511 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: (541) 346-3712 BUSINESS OFFICE: (541) 346-5512 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: (541) 346-4343 EDITORIAL Breasts in the U.S. A. ■ OUR OPINION: Female toplessness may soon be outlawed in Eugene, but the decision shouldn’t be made without widespread public support CONTACT US What do you think? Write us a let ter expressing your opinion or E-mail us at ode® Oregon. uoregon.edu We’ve all heard the fan tasies — or horror sto ries — depending on one’s point of view. European beaches, filled with frol icking women ... completely topless. Little kids playing in the sand near by, oblivious to the scenery. The so cietal belief being that bare female breasts are perfectly fine in public and definitely no reason for embar rassment. But that is Europe, or any other ex otic locale. In the United States, bare breasts are indeed unusual, as we discovered last week in Eugene. Sixteen-year-old Jesikah Allen and other women were recently seen in the Eugene Mall walking around ... topless. Yes, it’s true. Eugene has been overrun by nudists. Well, not really. But judging by the comments of downtown business owners and cus tomers, one would think the city was under invasion. Each group reacted strongly, especially business owners, demonstrating the wider societal fear of bare breasts. Representatives from Symantec Corp. wrote to Mayor Jim Torrey and city councilors, voicing their con cerns about the topless women. Po lice even received complaints from parents of children in the local day care. Apparently, the children were privy to the fact that bare breasts were in their midst. Because of this “outrage," the city council is currently taking a look at the present city nudity ordinance. And it may very well ban bare female breasts. Perhaps the distant European stories will remain just that — dis tant. But we question the source and quantity of these complaints. Despite their strong voice, do they equal a community standard against bare breasts in Eugene? We don’t think so. And until that happens, we can’t support any city ordinance prohibit ing female toplessness. We do recognize the right of pri vate businesses to uphold certain standards on their own property. But the legality of nudity ultimate ly depends on location. When it comes to public property like the mall, nobody can ban bare breasts in themselves. Under the current law, it’s perfectly legal. Now, behavior while topless is a different story. Some citizens com plained that Allen was “gyrating" her chest and purposely walking in front of the day care windows. If these accusations are true, we cer tainly don’t condone it. But Allen’s toplessness is not wrong in itself. If the city council wants to ban bare fe male breasts, it should only do so with a clear indication of broad community support, not just the complaints of a few businesses. This support could be found through a survey, an over whelming amount of supportive tele phone calls or letters or even by placing the issue on the bal lot. Until that hap pens, the city council should leave the nudi ty ordinance alone. And until the day that bare female breasts are banned, all those living in fear should lock their doors. Or just deal with it. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. CHRIS HUTCHINSON/EmeraW Student Conduct Code changes improve current policy The revised code expands the University’s jurisdiction in dealing with sexual misconduct and clarifies language relating to sexual consent ■ A student reported she was raped by another student in a fraternity bathroom during an off-campus party at which they were both guests. The woman’s grades did go down significantly that quarter, but the University couldn’t convince the hearing officer that her grades dropped because of the incident. Because of the ruling that the University did not prove a material interest in the event, a “not guilty” finding was ren dered. ■ A month after the previous incident, a student reported that she was raped in a residence hall by the same student in volved in the fraternity incident. She had been friends with him but had told him that she “never wanted to have sex with him.” Even though this incident happened on campus, because of the unclear stan dard for consent, a “not guilty” finding was rendered. ■ Last fall, a student went to a party on 18th Avenue. It was reported that he met a woman whom he escorted away from the party, bound and raped. Since she was a Lane Community College student, under the existing code the University did not have the jurisdiction, so no conduct case could be brought against the student. WHY WE MADE THIS CHANGE. We know that rape and sexual assault are serious problems on college campuses and society. In an effort to improve the Univer sity’s ability to respond to sexual assault and rape, students decided the University conduct code should be made clearer and stronger. WHAT IT DOES Expanding Jurisdiction: This amend ment extends jurisdiction off campus, in limited situations, to provide greater safety from fellow students. The changes majde a focus on community as a group of people rather than a physical location. A person does not cease to be a part of the campus community just because he or she leaves the physical boundaries of the campus. This does not mean, however, that the University has the right to control stu dents’ actions when they are not on cam pus; those actions must impact the Univer sity community. According to the proposed rule, if an as sault occurs off campus, the University must prove at least one of the following: that the survivor’s grades or performance at the University has been affected or that the defendant poses a threat to the campus community. Redefining Consent: This motion re places the current language, “behavior a reasonable person would know was un wanted,” with more precise language call ing for affirmation by either verbal consent or the mutual initiation of a sexual act. The Student Conduct Committee motion uses the concept of “explicit consent” for two reasons. The first is to encourage more clear communication in the hope that many of the misunderstandings that lead to someone being abused can be avoided. It lays out a higher standard of human rights. The second is to draw a “brighter line” so that allegations of misconduct can be re solved in a fair and equitable manner. Education as the Solution: These modifi- ’ cations are remedies to problems in the current code. The offense, “unwanted sex ual behavior,” is not prescriptive of com munity standards. It is quite ambiguous on the difficult issue of consent. The current code does not deal with the issue of con sent under the influence of drugs or alco hol. It does not adequately protect the cam pus community from predatory rapists who are involved in an incident off cam pus while they are students. It is my hope that students will become informed about the expectations this new code places on them, as well as the new options if some one is assaulted. I am happy to talk with students to help ensure that interpersonal rights are respect ed at the University. This is a standard we can be proud of! Elaine Green, a guest columnist for the Emerald, is the Associate Dean of Student Life. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the newspaper.
