Wednesday
Editor in chief: jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
Public Safety’s Bait and Switch
The Emerald reported Mon
day that the University’s
Department of Public Safe
ty has violated Oregon law
by purchasing and using vehicles
with red and blue lights — a privi
lege allowed only to certified po
lice officers. Does violating the law
make DPS officers safer, as they
claim? Maybe. Is it in the best in
terests of the campus community,
as DPS also claims? Hardly. Are ei
ther of those claims a reasonable
excuse for a public university to
flout the law? Absolutely not. The
lights should be removed.
Oregon Revised Statute 816.350
is clear on this issue — only police
officers’ cars being used for law en
forcement may have blue lights.
And there is a good reason for this.
When the public sees blue lights,
they are supposed to be able to as
sume that a law enforcement officer
is near. This serves an important
purpose in society by giving warn
ing to lawbreakers that law enforce
ment is nearby, and more impor
tantly, by identifying an officer who
may be able to help in cases of need.
Campus security cannot arrest
anyone, and they don’t have guns.
According to DPS Director Tom
Fitzpatrick, campus security can de
tain criminals (as can any citizen
who sees a crime occurring) and
frisk people, but Fitzpatrick made
clear that DPS prefers not to have
physical contact and would only do
so if a situation was threatening.
However, DPS vehicles’ red and
blue lights could confuse someone
needing immediate assistance, and
that situation could become danger
ous as a result of the mix-up.
DPS officers say that the lights
make them feel safer and in turn
help them make the campus com
munity feel safer. We can’t see
how. Whether they mean to or not,
the lights give campus security
more of a tough-guy image in soci
ety. Police have the right to use po
tentially lethal force to stop crimi
nals, and DPS is exploiting this
image by using the vehicles.
By riding the bulletproof vest
tails of actual police officers, cam
pus security is appearing to be
more serious and more forceful
than they are. This can’t be good
for community relations — DPS is
supposed to be providing the cam
pus with a sense of peace. Accord
ing to its mission statement, the
role of DPS on campus is “provid
ing a safe, secure and welcoming
environment.”
Campus security should be de
fusing situations, helping commu
nity members who are locked out
of their cars and making us all feel
safer instead of threatened by their
tough-cop image. Will having red
and blue lights really make for bet
ter relations with students and vis
iting parents or football fans? If it
does, it will only be out of a mis
guided fear that DPS has police
power. They don’t have that pow
er, and they shouldn’t.
What of the money the Universi
ty is spending to lease these police
cruisers? We realize that DPS
needs to replace their aging fleet of
patrol vans, and Fitzpatrick said
that DPS is getting a good deal, but
is leasing the best use of University
funds? Why don’t they spend
money to improve campus securi
ty in a positive fashion, such as
adding lighting, placing more
emergency boxes, heavily publi
cizing their evening safety escorts
or starting a peaceful intervention
service for intoxicated people on
campus, similar to the city of Eu
gene’s CAHOOTS service?
. There are ways to make our
campus safer and more peaceful.
Choosing red and blue lights for
DPS vehicles only serves to further
alienate the community from the
officers hired to keep the peace.
The Eugene Police Department
may not be willing to issue cita
tions for this law-breaking behav
ior, but we’re willing to cite the
best interests of the community.
Remove the lights.
Undemocratic decision disregards students, workers
Guest Commentary
Human Rights
Alliance
University President Dave
Frohnmayer bypassed established
decision-making processes two
weeks ago by joining the Fair La
bor Association. Capitalizing on
students’ absence over the sum
mer, Frohnmayer avoided any offi
cial form of faculty or student in
volvement. This was an
outrageously hypocritical action
that disempowers students and en
dangers the workers who make
University apparel.
Last April, after a year of re
search and discussion that in
volved the entire campus commu
nity, the University joined the
Worker Rights Consortium. Mem
bership in the WRC was approved
by a student referendum, an ad
ministrative committee, the Uni
versity Senate and several Univer
sity student organizations. The
FLA was approved by one person
— President Frohnmayer.
Frohnmayer has said that he
made an executive decision be
cause of the urgency to start moni
toring factories and to uphold our
code of conduct. Yet he felt no ur
gency last year when the four stu
dents on the Licensing Code of
Lonauct Committee, along with
several student leaders, pleaded
with Frohnmayer to act quickly.
This request was made after the li
censing committee, which had
met for almost a year, reached a
unanimous decision to join the
WRC. If the University had joined
when students wanted, the Uni
versity could have attended the
founding conference of the WRC.
Frohnmayer, however, said he
could not do anything until the
University Senate considered
membership.
This time, students were noti
fied of Frohnmayer’s intention to
join the FLA the day before the of
ficial announcement. ASUO Presi
dent Jay Breslow pleaded with
Frohnmayer to wait just one week
so that students could return and
weigh in on this decision. He was
flatly refused.
Wherever you stand on this is
sue, let us be clear on one thing —
there is no democracy on this cam
pus. Students, faculty, staff and
other campus constituencies have
a voice only if President Frohn
mayer allows it. Perhaps our cur
rent dictator is mostly benevolent,
but what happens when Frohn
mayer is replaced by someone
worse?
This decision obliterates democ
racy on campus, but its real impact
will be felt by a largely unseen and
often neglected group — the work
ers in overseas and domestic
sweatshops who make university
apparel. Why? Because, despite
some insubstantial, vague, and ul
timately insufficient changes over
the summer, the FLA is still pro
tecting corporations rights,
not workers’ rights.
The way the FLA is cur
rently set up, companies
choose which of their facto
ries are monitored, and
when. In many cases, factory
managers are in the same
room with workers when
they speak to monitors. Un
der the FLA Charter, it could
be possible for a company to
have less than 30 percent of
its factories monitored and
still earn the privilege of the
FLA’s sweat-free tags in its
entire product line. Well
meaning consumers will
think their purchase helps
workers; instead they will
only perpetuate the situation.
University membership in
the FLA actually hurts work
ers instead of helping them.
Despite what President
Frohnmayer says, which
monitoring body the Univer
sity associates with is a cru
cial decision — as crucial as
which person you choose to
vote for in the upcoming
elections. Common sense does not
dictate acting against moral and
ethical principles.
Don’t be fooled - these issues
are important. They affect you and
the people your age (or younger)
who make the products you buy.
The question is, do you care?
Please contact the HRA in the Survival Cen
ter (346-4356) or e-mail phlwoods@glad
stone.uoregon.edu with
comments/questions.
Speaking out against
stereotypes is not a choice
Guest Commentary
Cris
Cullman
I was one of the administrators
who called and talked to Becky Mer
chant , advertising manager of the
Emerald, about my disappointment
and anger that the Emerald chose to
run a Yahoo! ad campaign that was
both offensive and sexist, as well as
homophobic.
To my surprise, Ms. Merchant vol
unteered that she also found the ads
to be sexist and offensive, that there
was a review process she could have
used to reconsider the ads and she
had chosen not to use it. She told me
that “the students here did not seem
bothered by the ads. ” And so she did
not speak up. Perhaps one of the
things she was worried about was
that “the students” might think she
was being “too PC.” Is there an at
mosphere at the ODE that convinces
staff they might be ostracized if they
speak up?
Ms. Merchant’s behavior stands
in contrast to the actions of Erica
Fuller, director of the Multicultural
Center, a person new to this campus
who could have remained silent
and yet chose respond to what she
and others found to be demeaning
and dangerous. Fuller wrote a guest
commentary that helped readers
think about the ads in terms of their
effects on all members of the cam
pus community.
To put this matter in a different
context, I believe it is not appropri
ate for me, as a white person, to do
or say whatever I want without
thinking about how it might affect a
person whose skin is not the color
of mine; that is, if I hold to the prin
cipie mat i ao not want to con
tribute to racism and discrimina
tion based on skin color. Nor is it
sufficient for me to claim to have “a
black friend,” for instance, who will
tell me if I get out of line. For me,
taking responsibility for the privi
lege I enjoy as a white person means
to think about and realize how my
actions affect others, particularly
those who do not enjoy the pre
sumptions of innocence, worthi
ness and competence I often get au
tomatically just because of the way I
look. I did not just land on the plan
et and I am capable of thinking
about my actions in context.
When the editor of the Emerald
says, in his written response, that he
is “quite comfortable with the belief
that no one at the Emerald, in any
department, endorses rape or ho
mophobia,” he implies that they
have no responsibility for con
tributing to an atmosphere where
those things are more likely to be
condoned. And yet, in running this
ad series the Emerald basically said
to the campus community, “We
don’t have to care about how this af
fects you, particularly if you are ‘too
sensitive’ because you have been
the victim of sexual violence. As
long as the others are silent, then
they must think these ads are OK.
You don’t count because they are
not complaining.”
We have many examples of geno
cide, racial profiling and other hate
crimes continuing while the majori
ty stayed safely silent. It is past time
that we learned to think before we
act and to consider how others be
sides ourselves are affected both by
our actions and by our silence.
. Cris Cullinan is an officer of administration
in the University’s human resources de
partment.