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