Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 25, 2000)
Editor in chief: Laura Cadiz Editorial Editors: Bret Jacobson, Laura Lucas Newsroom: (541)346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu Tuesday January 25,2000 Volume 101, Issue 82 Efflerald Ti JL V e owners of your apartment com plex — or any other place you might live — probably want you to think you live in a community. But a uuiuiiy ui munuuypiu uununigi uutJD iiui a “community” make. A true com munity can only be formed where a “place of living” intersects the places of oth ers and you are consequent ly forced to interact. Together, we form something greater than ourselves alone. That is not terribly confusing. What seems to be confusing is what a sign that says either ALUMINUM or CARDBOARD ONLY might mean. To many of my neighbors, they trans late to PLEASE RANDOMLY DUMP YOT IR TRASH HFRF That is thfl rnrrent college community easier to throw trash or play loud music or steal pool cues when meaningful and enthusiastic residents’ as sociation, we might not get jerked around so much by the management. dure my remaining months of blank looks from my neighbors, and my old Ethernet card will continue to gather dust. state of affairs at the brand new, gigantic apartment complex tAflioro T roci/^o uieie cue iiu names ui faces in your conscience. Third, and I have a sinking feel ing that this is the most relevant, we are rvs 1 iuuk. imu me rniure oi my me, i can only expect that I will eventually live in a place with some sort of community spirit. Until then, unless I can organize some Jonathan Gruber is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached via e-mail Jonathan Gruber I can only conclude that, unless my apart ment complex has a disproportionately high fraction of illit erate college stu dents, the dumpers simply have no re gard for how they are inconveniencing the residents who actual ly want to recycle. They understand where they live, but they don’t realize that others live there too. It appears that college students are not very * good at coming together to make a differ ence for their own common lifestyles. Why don’t they care? Didn’t they see the brochures about how this is an ideal cam pus COMMUNITY? Maybe I’m wrong about this. There are many aspects of apartment life in which there is more of a community spirit, right? Like the pool, the computer lab or the bil liard tables? Not exactly. At the pool, who ever is the first to arrive turns on his or her favorite music as loud as possible; the com puter lab is only open during business hours (how useful!) because of possible theft; and so much has been stolen from the rec room that it is nearly useless. I am willing to draw the conclusion that college students, or at least the type who would live in the newest settlement near Autzen stadium, are wholly incapable of forming a cohesive community. Or, at least, we certainly do not put much priori ty on it. It’s unfortunate, but there are three obvious reasons for this. First, we are simply too transient. Many of us move twice a year, and nearly all of us move after four years or so. Being an active part of a community is something of an in vestment for the future, and many of us simply do not have much of a future here. Second, those of us in gigantic complex es can’t possibly meet everyone else. It’s simply iuu limucuuit? iu uiiutjrsi predate the dynamics and re wards of a community spirit with our neighbors. How many of us have regretted having a particular room mate? If we can’t all get along in the confines of our own residences, can we expect that we are capable of suc cessfully interacting with “outsiders”? Our lack of cohesion is an important issue because communities have power. Or, at least, more power than individuals do. In the River Road area of North Eugene, the community is fighting a plan to put in a gravel mine. Would a household or two stand a chance? Certainly not. Does the community stand a chance? With the mining laws in Oregon, the outlook is not good, but at least they have made enough of a racket that you could hear about it every where from the newspapers to the alternative rock station. Who knows about the plight of the spoiled resi dents where I live? OK, so the promised net that hasn’t arrived hardly affects our “lifestyle” to degree that grav el trucks and dust clouds hnt thfi fart rp~ ana or ap- ming mrougn ucsa« i'UJUO CvRe -tVC.FfeJp’l^ KU ifcpa t^E.khue£&ikxG?J mounaii.com, in en atjgruber@gladstone.uoregon.edu. mpwiMiK STUPE.NJT VI LLA iSiifiiiiiiii Letters to the editor Saferide has a clear mission: rape prevention I just wanted to point out a few errors that I observed in your article (ODE, Jan. 19) about the Programs Finance Committee and Project Saferide. First of all, Saferide does not hire drivers; they are volunteers. It probably would have been helpful for your reporters to check with the ASUO or Saferide itself. If it did hire women drivers, it would be breaking the law, but it does not. In this case, a quick check with the ASUO or Saferide itself would have cleared things up. Secondly, Saferide is no more a service that shuttles women from place to place at night than the Emerald is a bunch of words on paper. Saferide has a mis sion statement that very clearly states its purpose, and that purpose is not to be a taxi service. The article addressed PFC member Aaron Week's issues with Saferide's policy of using only women volunteer drivers, so it should have been mentioned that the reason behind this is that Saferide is a rape prevention shuttle. Alexandra Kerl Education Outreach Coordinator, ASUO Women’s Center Financial aid drug rule aides no one I am writing in regards to the article about a recent rule enacted by the U.S. Department of Education (ODE, Jan. 7), effectively disqualifying students with prior drug convic tions from receiving federal financial aid. I don’t feel your article went far enough to illustrate the complete lunacy of this new rule. The joke of a “war on drugs” seems to have allowed any measure or idea that pertains to punishing drug users/abusers to be accepted regardless of its legitima cy There is simply no way to defend this new “rule,” which benefits no one. Rather, it serves only to punish people who are poor and trying to improve their lives through ed ucation. The argument that the government should not “reward people convicted of possession or sale of illegal drugs” is completely invalid. Financial aid should not be seen as a “reward” for people coming from less than the hearty eco nomic background today’s universities require. Our gov ernment’s view that education is a privilege, not a right, for the economically insecure is very puzzling. Is it riot also curious that this-same section of our society is being punished for their past, that which they have no power to change? And at the same time denying them any assistance toward the improvement of their future, the one thing people have direct control to change? At best, this new rule is hypocritical, and at worst it is a dangerous measure targeting a specific group of people, es sentially keeping the poor poor and the rich ... well, they can buy an education if need be. William James Moglia University student ‘Guide’ story misses the real scoop It was a long way to go for a weak joke. Sara Lieberth’s article “Men in Red” (ODE, Jan. 18) treats us to a list of qua si-cutesy references in her description of the West Univer sity Guides but at the cost of accuracy. Are women not al lowed to be guides? This would be newsworthy. Are women allowed but uninterested? This would be worth a mention. Or are, as I suspect, women fully a part of this pro gram? In that case, Lieberth’s careless reporting does a dis service to them and to her readers. Ruth Bennett --'---* .psychology and-journalism
