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