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.