▼ 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.