NEWSROOM
(541)346-5511
E-MAIL
ode@oregpn. uoregor/jdu
ADDRESS:
Oregpn Daily Emerald
P.OBOX3159
Eugene, Oregon 97403
ON-LINE EDITION:
www.uoregon edu/~ode
Thumbs
r\
TOLLHOUSE
ATMS:
Santa Clara
(Calif.) County
now offers a
kiosk to crime
suspects so they
can post small
bail amounts on
their credit cards.
The machines
may help reduce
jail overcrowding,
but they don't
take American
Express.
TO CRANKY PO
LICE:
A16 year-old was
charged with
pointing a toy gun
at a Bend police
officer. The ar
resting officer
was responding
to a call about a
car full of armed
teens. When the
police are in hot
pursuit, pulling
outatoy gun isn't
going to be the
wisest prank.
,-—~ - ,
TO BRAZILIAN
VOTERS:
Despite govern
ment efforts be
fore the election,
some poor citi
zens in Brazil vot
ed for political
candidates who
could do them fi
nancial favors.
Shoes and refrig
erators were pop
ular items, but
cement and plas
tic surgery also
won voters’sup
port
TO BIG MAC
ADDICTS:
A group designed
to find out what
Oregonians want
from health care
released a report
suggesting that
citizens who
smoke, drink al
cohol—and reg
ularly eat at fast
food restaurants
—should pay
more for heaith
care. So much for
“your way, right
away.”
©regotiSKCmeralb
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Ryan Frank
EDITORIAL EDITORS
Jonas Allen, Kameron Cole
Educate,
don’t baby-sit,
University students
t'MLT y
11
1
8
Letters to the Editor
X
Notifying parents of alcohol and
drug use invades students' privacy
and limits their freedom
This country has its share of people
who invade others’ privacy: peep
ing toms, eavesdroppers, mail
thieves and — the U.S. Congress?
The House and Senate recently ap
proved an amendment allowing universi
ties to notify the parents of students under
21 if their child violates alcohol or drug
policies. The only thing missing is Presi
dent Clinton’s signature, which is expected
to come soon.
This amendment, while a noble attempt
to watch out for students, ignores why they
are in school in the first place. Most univer
sities are not boarding schools. Parents
generally don’t “ship” their kids away and
visit on the weekends to check up on them.
Instead, universities provide students
with the chance to make their own deci
sions and grow up independent of the rules
back home. This arrangement works just as
well for universities; they are here to teach
students, not baby-sit them.
But baby-sitting students is exactly what
the amendment proposes.
The sponsors of this legislation mean
well. Last year, five deaths on Virginia
campuses were attributed to alcohol; this is
an attempt to stop students’ irresponsible
drinking behavior. Yet one amendment
can’t accomplish that.
College is a time for students to
branch out; many would ar
gue that it is a time tor
students to rebel.
One of the motiva
tions behind the
amendment is
for students to
know that
their “rebel
lious” weekend activities may be discov
ered by parents. Legislators believe that the
threat of parents finding out about stu
dents’ behavior will curb the number of al
cohol-related injuries.
Current federal law prohibits universi
ties from releasing the records of students
over the age of 18. Once students have
reached that age, it is not a university’s le
gal responsibility to “report” home to par
ents. By allowing records to be released un
til students are 21, this amendment would
violate the privacy of adults who just hap
pen to still be in school.
Even if it is passed, this amendment
would be only selectively effective. Uni
versities could report documented alcohol
and drug policy violations, but for the most
part, those violations would come from the
residence halls, where resident assistants
can “supervise” students.
Once students get to bigger parties,
where larger amounts of alcohol and drugs
are consumed, “baby-sitting” those stu
dents is limited, at best, and people are left
to watch out for themselves. Because offi
cials only respond to the most out-of-hand
parties, a majority of the violations would
go unreported — meaning the university
and parents would receive just the “high
lights” of student habits.
No one will be helped by this amend
ment. Parents will only be informed when
their children are caught at the loudest par
ty. University officials will have to take the
time to call parents more often than they al
ready do. Students will be left with their
privacy invaded, their feelings hurt be
cause they can’t be trusted and the belief
that they will never be free from the watch
ful eyes of their parents.
And no one appreciates a peeping tom.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses may be
sent to ode@oregon .uoregon.edu.
Discriminating tastes?
I have been following the UO reli
gious discrimination issue since it be
gan early this summer, and I would
like to point out a few insights I’ve
had. In the article the Emerald ran on
page 10 the other day (ODE, 9/30), in
paragraph eight Computing Center
Director Joanne Hugi said that the CC
has no formal guidelines on which
newsgroups they carry. In paragraph
13, she is quoted as saying these
groups were removed because they
“no longer fit the newsgroup manage
ment standards.” These two state
ments are incompatible.
Hugi said that Joe St Sauver was
implementing a new system to man
age the newsfeed. St Sauver has giv
en so many different stories that I
don’t know what to think.
This is a continuation of the eva
sive tactics CC officials Hugi and St
Sauver have been using throughout
the debate on this issue. They’ve
been, in my opinion, consistently
rude and unprofessional, either
stonewalling or employing technical
doubletalk and circular self-referen
tial logic in a crude attempt to mysti
fy students and concerned citizens
from all over the country into believ
ing that there is no discrimination oc
curring here. When cornered, St
Sauver has been known to insult
one’s knowledge of computer sys
tems or change the topic entirely.
Hugi refused to answer any of the e
mail I and many others sent her, and
actually hung up the telephone on
UO graduate student Dave Faux.
I have a sheaf of correspondence
from St Sauver on my hard drive. As
I look through it, I note the reasons St
Sauver has given for this action.
Among them, in order, technical dif
ficulty, poor spelling, unfavorable hi
erarchical designation, bandwidth,
duplicate topic, unconventional tax
onomy, lack of programmatic re
quirement and now, “newsgroup
management standards.” While none
of these reasons makes any sense
whatsoever on its own, they are con
siderably more nonsensical taken as
they came in, one at a time. In the
end, it must be noted that the missing
groups are: alt.pagan, alt.satanism,
and the alt.magick hierarchy. A fairly
narrow set of topics.
If you have a non-UO newsfeed,
(not Eugene FreeNet: they get their
news from the UO), check to see if
they carry the groups in dispute. In
almost every case, they do. If they do
not, perform the following experi
ment: e-mail your news administra
tion. Request any of the groups. They
will add it. No questions asked.
Cody Yarbrough
Newsgroup questions
I have been following this case of
blatant religious discrimination for
several months now. There are a few
items that your article (ODE, 9/30)
did not cover which I would like to
bring to the attention of your readers:
1. St Sauver removed 33,000 of the
35,000 newsgroups a couple of weeks
ago and returned 32,000 newsgroups
the next day. He made sure to return
the 50-some Christian newsgroups
and other religious newsgroups but
still did not return the pagan groups
in question. He said this was at the
request of the Office of Affirmative
Action (OAA). The OAA said they re
quested nothing of the kind.
2. St Sauver recently added anoth
er 224 newsgroups, including
tamu.religion.Christian, which an
nounces Christian events for Texas
A&M University. None of the 224
was the pagan newsgroups in ques
tion.
3. The Computing Center compiled
an investigative report on the two of
ficial complainants (Kerry Delf and
Craig Hunt) in this case. This report
gave information about complaints
about Delf and Hunt resulting from a
flame war in 1996. They were exon
erated of the accusations that same
year. While the Computing Center
also submitted the exonerating evi
dence, this was clearly an attempt at
character assassination. They have
also suggested that any outside testi
mony is inadmissible if the person is
not an official complainant. Of
course, this is not true — the OAA
has confirmed its falsity.
4. Delf and Hunt requested that,
since their main argument for not re
activating the pagan newsgroups is
that there is reasonable access to
them through other means, they re
move all religious newsgroups from
the main UO news server, at least un
til the case is decided. They refused
to grant this request for equal access
and gave no reason.
1 believe that St Sauver has left the
University open to possible litigation
that could potentially cost the Uni
versity many tens of thousands of
dollars, if not more, which might bet
ter be spent improving the academic
curriculum. Were I a student or a
member of the faculty of your August
institution of higher learning, I would
most certainly be circulating a peti
tion for St Sauver’s immediate dis
missal.
Alobar Greywalker
Pagan clergyman
Correction
In the Oct. 6 story “UO student faces
incumbent Susan Castillo in candi
dates’ forum” and the Oct 7 story
“Student runs in state senate race,”
Castillo should have been called a for
mer KVAL-TV reporter. The Emerald
regrets the error.