Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 31, 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 Friday March 31,2000 Volume 101, Issue 121 Emerald There’s no way of getting around the census. It comes every decade, on the dot, and it helps de cide representation in Congress. But the census should be limited to less personal questions because the queries are unnecessary' and an in vasion of privacy that shouldn’t be tolerated. The gov ern ment is not guar anteed any more infor mation than a head count but currently asks much more intru sive ques tions. Such questions as when a per son leaves for work, when they’re at home most often and even a resident’s phone number are not £ necessary for deciding how many members of the House of Representatives each state re ceives. While census officials say that every question on the ques tionnaire is used by some govern mental agency — while magically be ing kept private, mind you — there are no constitutionally enumerated tidbits of private information to which the government is entitled simply for its convenience. Besides the fact that there is no legal requirement for more infor mation on census counts, there is the practical fact that the informa tion obtained and sifted through becomes statistically less impor tant with every passing year. While House members cam be delegated accurately enough throughout a 10 year period, any statistical use of more probing census information that proponents argue in favor of become worthless by the second half of the decade. Bret Jacobson V V There is a plausible concern that personal census information can easily be used inap propriately, despite as surances to the contrary. There is no serious way that privacy can be practically insured after given on a census. The Clinton administra tion has already been accused of il legally obtaining Internal Revenue Service files on its political ene mies, so there’s no reason to be lieve other citizens won’t have their privacy violated. If the government can say now that questions as to the times a citi zen is home can make governing easier, what’s to say that Big Broth er’s shoe won’t want in the bedroom door, asking about the sexual habits of Americans. They could argue that health departments could use that information effectively. There is no reason that the gov ernment needs the kind of invasive information they currently seek through the census, even if it makes governing slightly less con venient. The rights and dignity of American citizens is too important to be given away to an intrusive government. Bret Jacobson is editorial editor for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emer ald. He can be reached via e-mail at bjacobso@gladstone.uoregon.edu. Laura Lucas t seems that some questions have come up about this year’s census. The market ing campaign, to be sure, has blitzed your wav. Ads pro claiming the value of filling out Census 2000 are all over TV with feel-good messages of federal tax dollars sure to come our way if only we fill out the census. And most of us are ready to tell the government how many people live in our house and what their names and ethnicity are, which is the gist of the form most people get. But the longer form of the census , which only go out to one in every six Oregon house holds, has some very detailed ques tions. Questions about income, time you leave for work and how much rent or mortgage you pays. While otner government agencies, no tably the IRS, know a lot about us, it seems some people think die census shouldn’t ask such prying questions. 5*^^' After all, it just counts heads, right? Wrong. Those head counts determine lots of federal funding, and the detailed information — which may seem weird to answer — actually serves a good purpose. Knowing what time you leave for work is to establish traffic patterns, for instance. And the information shared cannot be used by any govern ment agency other than the Census Bureau. The bureau addresses the concern for privacy on its Web site. “To balance concerns about the intrusiveness of the decennial census, the many require ments placed on federal agencies, and the needs of state, local and tribal governments to manage programs, only those subjects that had specific federal legislative justification were recommended for Census 2000,” according to the agency. And, “Every question in Census 2000 is required by law to man age or evaluate federal programs or is needed to meet legal require ments stemming from U.S. court decisions such as the Voting Act. ... Federal dollars supporting schools, employment services, housing assistance, highway construction, hospital services, programs for the elderly, and more are distributed based on census data.” Higher in come neighborhoods would be earmarked for fewer housing assis tance dollars. And if more 9-5 people were living in one area of a city, maybe a new highway on-ramp is needed in the area. This is what the census, in all its glorious detail, tells us. All in all, about $182 million dollars will be distributed annual ly based on formulas using Census 2000 data. And that’s money we shouldn’t mind answering a few ques tions for. Laura Lucas is an editorial editor for the Emerald. Her views do not necessarily represent those of the newspaper. She can be reached via e-mail at llucas @gladstone.uoregon.edu. tower ot government should be returned to people In the commentary piece signed by University President Dave Frohnmay er (ODE March 29), the president of fers his support for shared governance at the University. Students, faculty and staff have been advocating for a role in de cision-making at this University in a vari ety of forms for a long time — whether it was in opposition to the president’s unilat eral endorsement of the Riverfront Re search Park, his rejection of the PRIDE Hall proposal brought to him by students last winter or his refusal to support the rights of farmworkers in our community by endors ing the PCUN-led boycott of NORPAC foods. Neither students, faculty nor staff oppose shared governance; rather, the con flict is over what exactly is meant by the ideals of democracy or shared governance within our University. Given the baggage associated with the term “democracy,” it seems appropriate to return to the Greek origins of the word. Demos means “the people.” In Greece, it was the body politic, that is, the individuals who could participate in decision making. Kratia Commentary is the second half of the word, meaning “rule by” or “power.” In English, then, democracy means “power of the people.” In practice, it implies participation and a certain level of control over decision-making by the people who are directly affected by those decisions. The shared governance process in place at the University is far from democratic. The people who are affected by University decisions — students, faculty, staff and cit izens of the state of Oregon — must rely on the sole decision-making power of the president. A more democratic system would have all members of the University community participating in decision-mak ing roles at the University. Students are currently excluded from the most impor tant decisions at the University, including where our money goes, and the social and environmental standards by which the University conducts itself. The president mentions, correctly, that state law grants him power to govern the University. He does have the ability to divest himself of that decision-making control, and he has done so in several instances. For ex ample, he plays no role in decisions around animal testing at the University. It is in the interests of the entire University community that we all share a greater role in decision making and that the University become a more democratic institution. In early March, students voted in ASUO elections for the University to join the Workers Rights Consortium, a monitoring group that prioritizes worker empower ment and public disclosure of workplace conditions. In the absence of democratic decision-making in other venues at the University, the results of this election be come even more meaningful. The ASUO elections reinforced the stu dents interest in taking a participatory role in larger issues of social justice, and we are hopeful for the prospects of shared gover nance at our University. Working together, we believe we can find solutions that em power the entire University community with a true shared governance system by which all members of the University com munity will have access to the decisions that affect all of us. Wylie Chen and Mitra Anoushiravani are the presi dent and vice president of the ASUO. Their views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. CORRECTION The story "local comedians will take a stand” (ODE Pulse March 30), gave incorrect informa tion about the performance. Eugene’s fifth annual Laff-Off is happening Sunday. The cor rect phone number for reservations is 683 4368. The Emerald regrets this error.
