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