Order in the Court (and the ASUO), according to former justice
I resigned as chief justice of the
ASUO Constitution Court for
two reasons. First, due to in
stitutional separation, the
role of the court and its decisions
have not been adequately ex
plained to the student body.
For various, necessary reasons,
a judge of any court is prohibited
from explaining the decisions of
that court or commenting on any
matter before that court. Court de
cisions and cases are explained by
the legal community (lawyers,
scholars, retired judges and other
commentators) surrounding the
court.
In the ASUO, however, we have
no similar legal community.
Without adequate information
and explanation, students under
standably become confused about
the role of the Constitution Court
and its decisions. I resigned to
help reduce this confusion.
Second, a series of increasingly
frequent and harsh attacks leveled
at the court and individual jus
tices continue to damage the
ASUO and poison our political
discussions. Some of these attacks
result from students expressing
their frustration with the court
(frustration resulting from the
confusion I described above).
Some of these attacks, however,
are direct, calculated efforts by
some students to advance short
term political goals at the expense
of the court and the ASUO. I re
signed to respond to these attacks,
especially those in the second cat
egory, which I consider unfair,
without merit, destructive and
dishonorable.
Now that I’ve identified some of
the problems, I offer a few pro
posed solutions.
Understand that your opponent is not
your enemy
At the heart of most of the prob
lems I’ve identified lies the unfortu
nately common bel ief that our polit
ical opponents must be our
enemies. This belief is wrong and
acting on such a belief does nothing
but poison the atmosphere of politi
cal discussion on campus and
threaten the integrity of the ASUO.
Someone who holds a different
political view, sees the world dif
ferently, or (specifically regarding
the Constitution Court) follows a
different judicial philosophy is not
a bad person. Disagreement does
not imply malice, an intent to
harm or intentional bias toward
any person. Disagreement does
not indicate character flaws or a
lack of integrity.
Disagreement simply demon
strates a difference of opinion.
Contrary to some rumors and
speculation, no justice of the court
made his or her decision based on
ASUO. As much as we disagreed
with each other, 1 never ques
tioned the integrity, intelligence,
dedication or knowledge of any
justice I ever served with. In fact, I
firmly believe that justices hold
ing very different legal philoso
phies make a court better and are a
great asset to the ASUO. Such dif
ferences ensure a complete and
thorough discussion of the issues
presented in every case.
However, those who disagree
with the court’s judicial analysis
should speak their opinions. We
should explain why the court’s
logic or reasoning may be wrong,
but we shouldn’t attack the in
tegrity of the court or an individ
,— prejudice
Commentary JgjggL.
Corcoran otherP™
tiveor any
other person
or organiza
tion in the
ual justice simply because we dis
agree with a particular decision.
We shouldn’t call the court “un
democratic,” or accuse the jus
tices of “having God complexes”
simply because a court decision
went against our particular politi
cal interests. Reasonable people
often disagree. Unreasonable peo
ple will say such disagreement in
dicates a character flaw or lack of
integrity.
Gel informed before you express an
opinion
In addition to understanding
our opponents are not our ene
mies, we need to do a better job of
gaining information about partic
ular court decisions before criti
cizing those decisions.
In response to several deci
sions, a number of students wrote
letters to the editor, which ap
peared here in the Oregon Daily
Emerald, describing the court as
tyrannical and attempting an un
democratic effort to usurp the
ASUO Executive and deny stu
dents their basic right to vote. Had
these students read the court’s
opinions before they wrote these
letters, they might have under
stood the court’s rationale for its
decision and how wrong these as
sertions were.
Before we criticize the court, or
any ASUO organization for that
matter, for its decisions, we need to
understand the basis of those deci
sions. Criticism is effective only
when properly directed at incor
rect reasoning or improper behav
ior. If we don’t understand that rea
soning or behavior, our criticisms
are unjustified, misdirected and ul
timately meaningless.
Conclusion
I’ve spotted some problems in
the ASUO, but I don’t have all the
answers. I’ll continue to do my
best to hel p reduce the confusion
described above by explaining the
court’s role and its decisions, here
in the pages of the Emerald or else
where, to help you make informed
opinions about the ASUO. But my
efforts will be worthless unless we
all stop personally attacking our
opponents for political or legal
opinions and start becoming more
informed about the issues arising
in the ASUO.
Joel Corcoran is theformer chiefjus
tice on the ASUO Constitution Court.
He resignedfrom the court on March
1. He can he reached via e-mail at
jcorcora@lau >. uoregon edu.
Letters to the Editor
Hotair
In her Emerald commentary on Monday
(ODE, Feb. 22), ASUO President Geneva
Wortman made an argument for the special
election but failed to address the major
points that suggest a corrupt process.
With incredibly vague language, flittering
generalities and plenty of platitudes regard
ing “student power,” Wortman made the
case that the grievance process needs to be
changed. However:
1. It would be utterly insane to revise the
process if the elections coordinator is still
employed by the ASUO Executive. This is
the main point of corruption with the cur
rent special election.
Elections Coordinator Taylor Sturges ex
tended the ballot measure deadline to only
the ASUO Executive, which resubmitted an
OSPIRG funding measure. Other groups did
not know of the extension. This clearly sug
gests that the elections coordinator was un
der pressure to do so by the ASUO presi
dent. This is corrupt, and it clearly shows
that the elections coordinator should be in
an office independent of the executive.
2. Wortman never addressed why fund
ing measures needed to be on the special
election ballot, except for citing the prece
dent set by rules for the general election. But
if she uses this logic, all regular rules must
be followed, including the election of all ap
pointed student senators.
If you choose to follow one rule, follow
them all. Picking and choosing again sug
gests a corrupt process, especially consid
ering that Wortman was heavily involved
with OSPIRG in the past.
Wortman’s commentary was cheap polit
ical rhetoric at its worst.
Andy Combs
Political Science
Funding issues
The debate about whether OSPIRG
should be funded and how to go about get
ting funding for OSPIRG has become a seri
ous problem for students (ODE, Feb. 25).
OSPIRG does provide services that students
can take advantage of and ones which we all
benefit from. By having powerful student
voices in the state political system, we stu
dents are somewhat protected form pro
grams and policies that would gradually
take away our rights to education and re
duce the health levels of our lives.
However, OSPIRG is funded at the whim
of students at the colleges and universities
in Oregon. Traditionally, OSPIRG received
one year of funding directly from the ASUO
Programs Finance Committee and the next
from a student vote.
I think that OSPIRG forgot that all socially
conscious organizations need to continually
let the membership know what is happen
ing within the organization. As a PFC mem
ber a few years ago, 1 questioned OSPIRG as
to what they did with their money. They
told us that the money was sent to Portland
and from there it was divided as OSPIRG
saw fit. I questioned how much of the mon
ey befitted students at this University. They
could not answer that question.
I believe that all student groups that re
ceive money from the ASUO must be com
pletely transparent as to what they spend
their money on. We all help fund these stu
dent groups through incidental fees. And all
student groups must therefore present their
next year’s line-item budget to the PFC for
approval, or not be funded.
I urge OSPIRG to comply with these
ASUO requirements.
David Lewis
Anthropology
spring
registration
begins
Thursday
March 11th
10am
register early...
classes fill quicklyl
£^l|Erb Memorial
Union
Fibers
Jewelry
c&> Ceramics
Drawing
Painting
Woodworking
ca> Stained Glass
Bike Repair
Photography
And more...
Schedules available at Craft Center
and other locations on campus
Craft Center is located on the ground
floor of the EMU *346-4361
craftcenter.uoregon.edu
dead week spe
Monday • March 8th
Tuesday • March 9th
mo<ha madness
Free syrup flavor with any mocha purchase
Valid at TIm lun • GreofW Iread • Ddy Grind •
ten percent day
Wednesday • March 10th
Thuersday • March 11th
larger than life
Get a large coffee for the
Valid at
triple stamp
Buy any coffee or espresso and
Valid at The Buzz • Greatful Bread • Dad)
Friday • March 12th
friends day
Get two lattes for the price on one
Saturday
March 13th
emufoods.uoregon.edu
Men's Rugby 8am-12noon • Southbank Field
Women's Rubgy 12noon-5pm • Southbank Field
dubsporls.uoiegon.edu