Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 12, 1998)
CONTACTING US : NEWSROOM: | (541)346-5511 ; E-MAIL | od8@ongor. uorsgoredtj ADDRESS: Orejon Da#/ Emerald PO SOX3159 Esjgene Oegor 97403 tui i iuw: aancwtnQ joregon ecu -ox I EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Laura Cadiz Boy Scouts should not discriminate (business') (CUJ&) CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald AN EMERALD EDITORIAL Religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be taken into account for membership in the Scouts California seems to generate contro versy. Whether it's banning bene fits for immigrants or eliminating affirmative action, the actions tak en by the voters and courts of the state have addressed many "hot" political questions. Now, the California Supreme Court has the opportunity to bring an aging institu tion into modem times; the court is hearing arguments in two suits filed against the Boy Scouts of America. One suit was filed by tw'in boys who were expelled from an Orange County troop because they are atheists. The other concerns a man who was barred from a po sition as an assistant scoutmaster because he was revealed as being gay. In both cases, the court must decide whether the scouts constitute a business or a club. If the court decides the Boy Scout organization is the former, it will mean drastic changes for scouting. Under federal and state rules, businesses cannot discrim inate against people on the basis of a vari ety' of traits, including religion. Discrimination against gender would also be forbidden, which means the Scouts would be compelled to admit girls into their group. Currently, women are allowed to be Explorer Scouts but cannot partici pate in traditional troops. There are other legal issues involved as well, of course. The question is not as sim ple as determining if the Boy Scouts of America are a business. Nevertheless, even that question is hard ly a simple one. The legality of current Scout policies is an issue we will leave to the courts to decide. Regardless of what they choose, howev er, we think the Boy Scouts ought to admit all interested parties into their organiza tion. At an ethical level, it isn’t right to deny the many opportunities scouting pre sents just because someone doesn’t believe in God, for example. Not everyone wants to be a Boy Scout or understands why the group might be ap pealing. For many people, however, espe cially in smaller communities, the group offers the chance to socialize, learn and be with other kids — opportunities that might not otherwise be available. Conversely, for many urban youths, the Scouts offer a chance to learn about nature and even get into the woods, something many kids growing up in cities might never get to do on their own. Additionally, the Scouts are well known. Membership in the Scouts can im prove the possibility of admission to many other organizations and schools; it pro vides leadership experience that is valued by the military and employers. Even if the Scouts are neither a public agency nor a business, they are admired by both public and private groups. It is particularly difficult for us to under stand why the Scouts would deny mem bership to atheists. Some of us were Boy Scouts, and what we remember from our days in blue or khaki has little to do with God or religion. Personal beliefs are not an integral part of the Scouts. While the word “God" may appear in the pledge, and while Eagle boards might ask about religious dedica tion, the reality of the organization is that it emphasizes community service, a variety of skills and an understanding of nature. Monotheistic faith is at best tangentially re lated. Nevertheless, there is no reason scouting can’t continue to use traditional pledges and ceremonies. Allowances simply need to be made for those who aren’t religious. If someone doesn't want to swear to any god, there is no reason to compel him or her to do so. As a whole, we admire the Scouts. Most of their practices benefit the community. We simply wish the group would recog nize what its purpose should be: to im prove the lives of youths, rather than to ar bitrarily and unfairly discriminate against random groups. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses may be sent to ode@onegon.uoregon.edu LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Computer labs closed I am writing to the Emerald to express my Thanksgiving break grievance and hope that it might be published in an edition of the paper. Due to not being one of the for tunate people who own a com puter, the Microcomputing Lab at the EMU has been my haven for typing papers — more specifi cally, foreign language essays. As far as I know, it is the only com puter lab that has the program Foreign Language Word. This program is a blessing for those majoring in romance languages, such as myself. The EMU Com puter Lab has the most conve nient location, and every Sunday this entire term has been sacri ficed to write, or rewrite, an essay for my French 303 class. Howev er, it was most discouraging to find it closed, at possibly one of the most crucial times of the term, the weekend before Dead Week. I came, as per usual, on Sunday to write my last and most important essay of the term, and was incredibly annoyed at this inconvenience. In the future, I wish for the per sonal behind this decision to consider those faithful patrons of the EMU Microcomputing Lab, and to not cause such an incon venience again. I am still typing my papers there, but wish for my grievance to be recognized. Alison Lowden Romance languages McDonald is a puppet I was glad to see University Vice President Duncan McDon ald’s words in the media once again (ODE, Jan. 6). The more he spews, the more the ruthlessness with which he carries forward the dominant paradigm at this University becomes clear. Unfor tunately, our tuition is going to pay the salary of people who are overtly against the idea of stu dents’ freedom of thought and ex pression. He even commanded the Emerald to not only censor student views that may ruffle a few feathers among those in posi tions of power, but that they should spend their time and stu dent fees vilifying and rebuking the thoughts of students who have put a great deal of energy into meticulously researching the positions on which they are not afraid to take a stand. What does he have to com plain about? As opposed to the numerous days students have to wait for a letter to the editor to be published in the Emerald, his showed up the day after submis sion. In addition, the Emerald’s coverage of the student rally last semester lent half of the article to his sound bites, even giving him the final word, and a local televi sion station gave him an on-cam era interview that took up more time than that allotted to the rally scene. McDonald says the "dialogue from these groups that want to 'save' the University ranges from disingenuous to dishonest.” I wonder what “dialogue” he is re ferring to. Students have made their concerns clear that dia logue, in the form of student and faculty representation on some of the most important decision making bodies responsible for the present and future welfare of our University, is what is truly in need. Claudia Villena and many others have been bringing forth a comprehensive analysis of just what it means that the Universi ty is becoming more and more dependent on private funding. To this point, though, the efforts have obviously fallen not on deaf, but hostile ears. The spine-chilling feeling that motivated my response came from McDonald’s line about donors being “the real heroes.” As spokesman for the University administration and the Oregon Foundation, McDonald demon strates concisely their belief that the ends do indeed justify the means. But McDonald is only a puppet whose strings are firmly pulled by the masters who have put him in his public-relations position. I have only so much time to waste in becoming too entangled in his rhetoric not to see the important issues that lie behind his forceful and overwhelmingly arrogant ve neer. I admire the dedication of those who have done their best in the face of a campus atmosphere that is too often antagonizing and apathetic to keep the student body and the community in formed about what is really going on. Kevin Aaron Environmental studies / sociology
