I-1
CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
E-MAIL
ode«oregon uoregon.edu
ADDRESS:
Oregon Daily Emerald
P.0 BOX 3159
Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmieitach
NIGHT EDITOR
Teri Meeuwsen
Plans to place a flag on Skinner
Butte are fine, as long as they
address concerns about aesthetics
and light pollution
AN EMERALD EDITORIAL
Some cities strive for
consensus. Eugene
appears to strive for
controversy.
The latest hastily assem
bled battle is over a proposal
by local veterans and others
in the community to place a
large flag on top of Skinner
Butte as a war memorial.
This flag would replace a
massive cross that stood on
the site until common sense
and the Constitution pre
vailed and a judge ordered
the religious marker re
moved from public land.
To some extent, the fight
over the cross was under
standable. Those opposed to
the cross had a solid legal
and ethical basis for their ar
guments, and those who sup
ported it saw the removal as
a slight to firmly held per
sonal beliefs and to the veter
ans whom the cross suppos
edly honored.
The new fight is somewhat
more absurd. Flag opponents
have complained that Eu
gene would look like a mili
tary installation, while sup
porters have spouted
patriotic rhetoric and hidden
themselves in the symbolism
of the flag. If both sides
would use a little common
sense, they would realize the
idea of a modest display is a
reasonable one.
Opponents of the flag have
raised several important
questions, the most signifi
cant of which concerns light
pollution. If the flag is of the
size and height currently
proposed — 20 feet by 38 feet
in size and on a 100-foot pole
— it would be too difficult to
raise and lower it each day.
That would require the flag
being lit at night, as regula
tions require.
The bright, upward-point
ed spotlights required to illu
minate a flag of that size
would contribute greatly to
light pollution in the Eu
gene area. Such pollu
tion is a concern for lo
cal and international
groups around the world.
Those groups worry about
light pollution for several
reasons. Aesthetically, elec
trically lit skies cover up
stars and cheapen the ap
pearance of an area. At a
more practical level, the cost
of essentially wasted illumi
nation is high — as much as
$1 billion a year, according
to the International Dark
Skies Association.
Also troublesome, espe
cially in a university com
munity, is that light pollu
tion makes astronomy
difficult. Bright city lights
blot out previously bright as
tronomical objects.
Several council members
also complained, accurately,
that a 100-foot-high flagpole
would be out of scale with
Skinner Butte and the area as
a whole. Perhaps, as Regis
ter-Guard columnist Don
Bishoff suggested, giant flags
are best left to used-car lots
and fast-food restaurants.
Then, of course, there was
councilwoman Betty Tay
lor’s infamous remark that
the flag would make Eugene
look
like a
military out
post. Veterans,
with some justification, were
upset, but the reaction was
far beyond what the inno
cently intended remark war
ranted.
Of course, a monument to
war veterans would have
military undertones. And, of
course, many Americans,
with justification, see the flag
as a symbol of U.S. aggres
sion and imperialism. The
flag wasn’t intended for
those Americans — it is sup
posed to be a reminder of the
admirable service done by
veterans, who didn’t choose
the conflicts they fought in or
the way they would be
waged.
Veterans and council op
ponents of Taylor could
have, quite reasonably,
pointed that out. Instead,
they muttered angrily under
their breath and spoke angri
ly out loud. Councilman Pat
Farr was quoted in The Reg
/ T"
<s>
CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald
ister-Guard as saying Tay
lor’s statement was “repug
nant.”
Significantly more repug
nant than Taylor’s comment
is the concept that anything
less than total adoration of
the flag — any flag, no matter
how tall or out of place — is
treason. Americans should
have the right to salute the
flag and the right not to —
otherwise it loses any sym
bolic meaning it has left.
More unnecessary squab
bling will undoubtedly en
sue when the proposal
comes up at a public hearing.
For some reason, Eugene ap
pears to feel aimless without
a Skinner Butte controversy
to distract the public’s atten
tion.
We certainly don’t support
every military and political
action taken by the U.S. gov
ernment. Nevertheless, we
understand why the flag
would be an appropriate
symbol to honor veterans,
who certainly deserve credit.
If private money is avail
able to build the monument,
and if the project can be ad
equately small to address
aesthetic concerns and en
sure the flag will come
down at night, we see no
reason why the council
shouldn’t stop fighting
about a hill and plant a flag
at the top instead.
Consider it a monument to
community cooperation.
Now maybe the council can
worry about growth, multi
national corporations, the
continuing decay of the envi
ronment and the civil liber
ties of Eugene residents.
This editorial represents the
opinion of the Emerald editorial
board. Responses may be sent to
ode@oregon.uoregon. edu.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Riverfront feedback
I am a member of a committee that was recently
formed by University President Dave Frohnmayer
to review the proposed expansion of the River
front Research Park. The committee is seeking
written input from students and the community
on any matter related to the research park. We rec
ognize the strong need for feedback from the peo
ple who will be affected by this expansion and in
vite anyone with arguments related to the
development to submit them to us in writing. In
particular, we are interested in reasoned argu
ments that add to the already substantial dialogue
that currently exists. These arguments may be in
corporated into the report that we present to the
president. In addition, those with especially com
pelling arguments may be invited to speak at a
committee hearing. Statements can be sent to:
rrpreview@lists.uoregon.edu or Riverfront Re
search Park Review Committee, c/o President’s
Office, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.
Michelle Johnston
Student Senate President
Moral standards change
I would like to take issue with at least one point
made by Gordon Melby in his letter (ODE, May 4).
Cultures, like life forms, tend to change over
time to suit new conditions.
This is called evolution, a concept which ad
mittedly may be difficult for some believers in the
god of “Abraham, Moses,” et al (and for that mat
ter Inquisitors, witch-hunters and Klansmen) to
accept, but the evidence, both in the written and
the fossil records respectively, overwhelmingly
indicates that indeed such processes take place.
When these changes are rapid and profound,
conflict, even violence, often results. Those who
adhere to the “old ways” thus unfailingly utter
thundering pomposities alluding to “a complete
breakdown of moral standards,” when what is ac
tually occurring is a shift from an outdated system
of ethics to one which is hopefully more appropri
ate for the times.
More simply put, moral standards do not van
ish, they merely transform. And if one loudly
chooses not to subscribe to the new code, well,
then one becomes a member of “a large, vocal mi
nority” oneself.
Bill Smee
Public Safety
Thumbs
TO BENJAMIN
NETANYAHU:
Everybody's
buddy Bibi is
holding up the
Middle East
peace process.
His latest move
was to refuse to
concede to a
U.S. demand to
make plans for a
small pullout
from what will
be Palestinian
territory. Talks
are, accordingly,
stalled. While
Netanyahu and
the Israeli gov
ernment are cer
tainly in a posi
tion to shove the
Palestinians
around because
of their military
advantage, the
moral impera
tive to obey U.N.
and U.S. de
mands for good
faith negotiating
ought to nag at
the Israeli
leader.
TO U.S. SEN
ATE APPROVAL
OFNATO
EXPANSION:
Despite objec
tions raised by
liberal and con
servative lead
ers, foreign-poi
icy pundits and
several major
newspapers,
senators ap
proved extend
ing the military
blanket of NATO
over three more
nations. As the
Emerald argued
earlier, expan
sion could po
tentially cost the
U.S.billlons—
senators reject'
ed a move to
limit America’s
potential eco
nomic liability
-—and risk an
gering Russia, a
nuclear power
that should be
made to feel
welcome, not
isolated, in the
midst of its on
going economic
crisis.