Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (June 3, 1997)
▼ EDITORIAL 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: Id (541)346-4343 Look out Oregon, here comes California Oregonians’ prejudice against people from California reflects their own ignorance and fear over what they see as a threat to the entire state of Oregon. Hi! My name is Nicole Kristal. I’m 19 years old, and I’m a Californian. And, of course, now you can infer that I’m super ficial, competitive, impersonal, unfriend ly and completely unconcerned about the environ ment. One of my favorite pastimes is bitching about the miserable weather and the rain—because, of course, I live on a warm, sunny beach. Oh, and did I mention that I have blonde hair, too? Sorry for the biting sarcasm, but I hope I made my point: Oregonians unfairly stereotype Californi ans. I, for one, am incredibly tired of it. But not all Oregonians carry this deep-seated prejudice. I’m smart enough not to make foolish generalizations about an entire state. Before I moved here to attend the University, Cal ifornians told me that most Oregon residents and business employees would bend over backwards to help me. Unfortunately, almost every time one of these friendly public servants asks to see my OPINION ariver s license, ineir aeiigntnii attitude becomes unpleasant and condescending. At Food Value, the Eugene Public Library and a number ot other stores and estab lishments, I have experienced this sort of prejudice. Last year, I wrote an editorial in which I made the mistake of mentioning that the bay area is “socially ad vanced.” In a letter to the editor, I was labeled “Oregonaphobic.” I also received a nasty telephone call from three girls who yelled, “If you don’t like it here, go back to California!” However, if you heard of Hispanics having pride in their Californian homeland, you wouldn’t hear people yell, “Go back to Mexico!” unless they were completely racist. Last winter, I was walking home after class with a fellow student. He was wearing shorts and the weather was rather cold. I asked if he was cold. He said, “No, this isn’t cold. All those damn Californi ans can’t take the cold.... You’re from Boston, right?” Wrong. But for some reason Oregonians believe that all Californians “deserve” to be the target of these at tacks. This prejudice against Californians is com Welcome to BEAUTIFUL OREGON pletely acceptable to most Oregonians I know. Glenn Tsunokai, a University of California at Riverside doctoral student in sociology, conducted a survey last November about the deep-seated prej udices Oregonians have against Californians. Tsunokai used the questions from a survey used to measure prejudice against blacks and homosexuals and substituted the word “Californians.” He found that 68 percent of Oregonians think Californians cause negative changes in their com munities. According to the study, Oregonians view Californians as shallow, ruthless and competitive — not to mention superficial, calculating and im personal. Oregonians describe themselves as charitable, trustworthy, law-abiding, considerate and neigh borly. (Funny, those weren’t the first words that popped into my head.) According to the Oregoni ans polled in the survey, 53 percent believe Ore gon’s environment will deteriorate as more Califor nians move into the state. The fact that such a broad assumption exists is disappointing and frightening. California is a diverse state. Last time I visited, I saw license plates from all over the country — even Oregon. Surprisingly enough, no one was com plaining about those “damn” Oregonians being in CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald our state, driving slowly on the freeways and sitting in their cars at gas stations waiting to be served. I simply do not understand this prejudice. While research has been done to prove that Oregonians foolishly hate Californians, no evidence exists to prove that this prejudice is justifiable. In life there are good people and there are bad people. There are greedy people and generous peo ple. One cannot assume that the person’s place of origin determines what type of person that person is. Stereotyping and generalizations make threat ened people feel safe. But as far as in-migration is concerned, Oregoni ans might as well accept the fact that large numbers of Californians as well as Washingtonians are mov ing to Oregon because they have not control over it. Californians aren’t going to leave the state just be cause they encounter a little attitude. Oregonians can only make themselves appear threatened, inse cure and immature by pushing this prejudice on every Californian they meet. Nicole Kristal is a columnist for the Emerald. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the news paper. E-mail: nkristal@gladstone. uoregon.edu. Correction | The story on the ASUO Executive on page four of the June 1 Emer aWshould have read that ASUO j President Bill Miner and Vice President Ben j Unger changed the title of Non Traditional Stu dent Advocate to Outreach Director j because the per son chosen for the job is not a non-traditional student. The Emerald re grets the error. LETTERS Unreal hypotheticals I am writing in response to Jade Forrest Rubick’s letter about the Sexual Misconduct Code (ODE, May 28). Rubick erroneously stated that the code said students who have sex in family housing and students who don’t do their homework because they’re too busy kissing are committing acts of sex ual violence. As someone who helped draft the code, I would like to correct Rubick. Students who have sex in family housing aren’t commit ting acts of sexual violence; students who rape or sexually assault someone in family housing are. And I could care less how two people choose to spend their time unless one of them is being raped or sexually as saulted. I’m not sure what possessed Rubick to think that these two hypotheticals fell un der the jurisdiction of the code. Even more confusing is the fact that sexual assault oc curring on University-owned or controlled property or that affects a person’s academic performance was punishable under the old code. The new code does not change these things; what it does do is clearly define rape and sexual assault. The other major change is that rape and sexual assault are defined as occurring when both parties do not consent to the sex ual act. Consent means if you’re not sure, find out. This is plain common sense. Com mon sense, by the way, should have told Jade Forrest Rubick that healthy relation ships are not punishable under the sexual misconduct code. Mandi Hood Co-chair Student Conduct Code Committee Code protects Classic scenario. A woman goes out with a friend, drinks a little, and ends up not feel ing so well. She passes out and awakes to find her body being violated. She says no; she makes attempts to regain control, but the violence against her continues. This happened two weekends ago to a female student off-campus by a male University student, and in reality, it happens every weekend. This classic scenario is precisely the rea son for the Student Sexual Conduct Code changes. Under the old code, this student had no recourse because it was off-campus, and there was little resistance to force. Now we have a code that protects people in inca pacitated states. We now have language that protects all students and the surrounding community. There have been arguments that the code takes away a student’s right to get drunk and have sex. What it truly takes away is the am biguity of consent and the complications of alcohol. We have protected our students on campus and off. We have begun to take re sponsibility. We are adults now, and we must be accountable for our actions. To the survivor of this crime: we apolo gize; we sympathize, and we want you to know you have the support of the ASUO and the University behind you. We also want you to know you have recourse not only in the legal system, but the University as well. To the media: the purpose of this code has been ridiculed and mocked with jokes of consent forms and questions of purpose. You did not try to represent the truth; you tried to scare and scandalize. The manner in which these changes were explained was ir responsible and unprofessional. To the readers of this letter: it’s time to take responsibility for our sexual practices. If that seems like too much to ask, then think of this woman or a woman being hurt who you love. Think of a wife, a sister, a mother and reevaluate. Cassandra Lautenschleger ASUO Safety Advocate Bill Miner ASUO President Ben Unger ASUO Vice President WINNERS PAULAJONES The Supreme Court ruled that Jones has a right to take the President to court on charges of sexu al harassment. MICHAEL JORDAN Jordan proved he is stiH the king of the court Sunday, nail ing a last second jumper to win the first game of the Buiis-Jazz series in the NBA finals. REBECCA SEALFON The 13-year-old Brooklyn resident won the National Spelling Bee with her correct spelling of the word “eu onym.” AIDS PATIENTS President Clinton announced he will propose having Medicaid cover the cost of medication for low-income pa tients infected with the virus that caus es AIDS. LOSERS JOECAMEL The Federal Trade Commission ruled that the lovable camel is geared at kids and will move to ban the cam paign. MARTHA STEWART Stewart is subject to charges of pin ning a construc tion worker with her car for building a fence by her home. TIM ALLEN The “Home Im provement” star was charged with drunken driving af ter being docked at 70 mph in his Ferrari. MARY SLANEY The Eugene-resi dent track star was suspended sus pended from com petition by the In ternational Amateur Athletic Federation for her alleged drug use.
