▼ 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.