Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 21, 1998)
CONTACTING US NEWSROOM: ADDRESS: (541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald E-MAIL P.O.BOX 3159 ode@oregon. uoregon.edu Eugene, Oregon 97403 ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/-ode Perspectives EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Carl Yeh Discussing Diversity Too little talk about race has occurred in the years since King died When the last parade is over, when the last speech has been made, and when the last obliga tory news report has been filed, a ques tion remains. Would Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had he lived to see his 69th birthday, be satisfied with the state of race relations in America today? This question was posed many times to many people as the country com memorated King’s legacy earlier this week. That positive changes have occurred in the way the country perceives and reacts to race is undeniable. And while King would undoubt edly be pleased with OPINION I the progress the na y§ tion has made, he fc might be dismayed i J that national discus H; sion on race has yg^mifgllg stalled. Kameron Racism has a p . unique status in L/Oie America. Everyone knows about it, but very few people are talking about it. Part of the reason the civil rights movement of the 1960s was so power ful was because it forced Americans from every walk of life, in every corner of the nation, to confront the ugliness of racism, not only in the streets of At lanta and Birmingham, but within their own communities. And, most impor tantly, within themselves. Today we find open, rational debate on race has fallen victim to a laissez faire American mindset that believes anything too complex or painful to ad dress should be ignored in the hope that it will simply go away. Unfortunately, this conflicts with the incontrovertible fact that the only way to effectively address racism is to do what Dr. King knew had to be done, and what so many Americans today are reluctant to do: Talk about it. As college students, our burden is particularly heavy. The American uni versity’s reputation as a place that fos ters discourse has been severely imper iled by recent trends toward apathy and thought policing. When the jugger naut of political correctness swept across the country, the message left in its wake was that while every issue has myriad facets and viewpoints attached to it, the only correct way to view an is sue is the least offensive one. The effect of such efforts, ostensibly undertaken to make the world a kinder, gentler place, has been to set back progress to a degree that we are only be ginning to realize. Nothing significant has ever been ac complished in the absence of signifi cant discussion. And as we attempt to tackle issues such as affirmative action and diversity, we as a nation need to re alize that any attempt to do so without also addressing the larger issue of race is akin to attempting to build a house without first laying a foundation. In a less frequently quoted passage of his “I Have a Dream Speech,” King spoke of the "fierce urgency of now.” This phrase takes on a striking signifi cance today. As we stand at the thresh old of the 21st century, we cannot af ford to ignore the issues of race and racism. Racism is a disease of igno rance, and the only cure is to hold it up to the light. America still feels history like an open wound. Confronting racism will be a painful process, but also one es sential to the health of the nation. Monday, at Eugene’s annual King celebration, keynote speaker Okianer Christian Dark implored that we not “be afraid to notice differences.” We must not be afraid to talk about them ei ther. Kameron Cole is a columnist for the Emer ald. Her work appears on alternate Wednesda ys. Her views do not necessarily represent those of the neuspaper. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR CHRIS HllTCHINSON/Emerald <£j) lli/kfaY&rr> Overturn Roe The 25th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade has heightened national attention on the abortion issue. Most editorials and articles that I have read praise the decision, but as Americans — both pro-life and pro-choice — we should look past the rhetoric on both sides of this divisive issue. It is im portant to understand what Roe means in terms of the role of our judiciary and the implications for constitutional govern ment itself. Proponents and opponents of abortion need both realize that Roe marked the pin nacle of judicial despotism in this coun try, at least since the Dred Scott decision, which spurred the Civil War. I give this ekample not to draw the rhetorical paral lel between slavery and abortion, but to show that the door of judicial tyranny swings both ways — from slavery to ex treme libertarianism. Roe overturned the anti-abortion laws of 48 states, based on the premise of a natural right to privacy that can be found nowhere in the Consti tution. Chief Justice Taney did exactly the same in 1857 by outlawing the prohibition of slavery in the free states and territories on the premise of a natural right to trans port one’s property. Even well-respected liberal constitutional theorists like Alan Dershowitz decry the logic behind Roe be cause they know that it presents one of the greatest threats to freedom in America. The relevant question is why must the Court usurp the community’s right to abol ish a practice that its citizens view as im moral? Should the Supreme Court legalize prostitution, drug use and gambling as an infringement of privacy as well? The same reasoning used in Roe would have nulli fied all state laws that outlaw doctor-as sisted suicide. Is this what we want from the judiciary — an unelected group of lawyers appointed for life who arbitrarily determine the legitimacy of individual states’ laws? Overturning Roe by a legislative man date is the least we can do to restore confi dence in our Constitutional framework. It will not necessarily make abortion illegal or less accessible, but confer autonomy to the community to make its own decisions democratically. Please don’t be fooled by rhetoric praising the decision and under stand that its annulment is not as drastic a step for policy as many would claim. It was a poorly-reasoned decision that set precedent for present and future rulings, and overturning it is the least we can do to restore respectability to our Constitution. Jonathan Collegio Chairman, College Republican Federation of Oregon Solar planning The Eugene Planning and Development Department is in the process of updating the city’s land use codes. Included in this proposal is the elimination of solar access in most districts. According to staff, the ex isting solar code is difficult to implement and conflicts with the city’s desires to have a more compact downtown area and neighborhoods. The updated-code draft limits solar access to the residential dis tricts. Energy options in the Northwest and the world are decreasing rapidly. For ex ample, hydroelectric dams are having dis turbing effects on the local salmon popu lation, which has led to the recent addi tion of the coho salmon to the endangered species list. In addition, the December Ky oto conference on global warming has shown this issue is a major concern for hu mankind. With the rise of the solar industry and practical advances in solar technology, we need to look at creative ways of protecting solar access in all districts and all build ings. Transforming to a more sustainable lifestyle rests on the use of our solar in come. The Solar Information Center be lieves that Eugene’s zoning must incorpo rate solar access. The solar access panel will be looking into alternatives to the current solar zon ing ordinances. The panel discussion will be an opportunity for people with various views to collaborate and find a solution that can propel Eugene into the solar age. Please join us today at 7:30 p.m. in 177 Lawrence. For more information, call 346-3696. Jason Wilkinson Eugene
