Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 9, 2000)
Monday 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 Measure 9: Sanctioning bigotry in schools The Oregon Citizens Alliance is trying to rip Oregon apart again. The group’s 1992 anti-gay meas ure, ironically also titled Measure 9, created a firestorm across the state and subjected homosexuals to harassment, death threats and physical abuse. The OCA’s latest Measure 9, despite the propagan da, does not protect children from the “homosexual agenda” and does not improve schools. What it does is far more dangerous to chil dren: It institutionalizes bigotry and silence. Measure 9 purports to make schools better by limiting what can be taught. The measure’s content holds that “sexual orientation, as it relates to homosexuality and bi sexuality, is a divisive subject mat ter not necessary to the instruction of students in public schools.” But in order to combat sexually transmitted diseases and provide counseling to students seeking ad vice from impartial professionals, these subjects need to be allowed in schools. And how would it af fect regular curriculum? If a stu dent asked about homosexuality during history class, could a teacher answer? Measure 9 contains vague word ing in order to be confusing. The language of the measure also states “homosexuality and bisexuality shall not be presented in a public school in a manner which encour ages, promotes or sanctions such behaviors.” What, exactly, is sanc tioning homosexuality? Do those words mean that unless you say homosexuality is unnatural and perverse, you’re breaking the law? That’s only one viewpoint. The measure demands sanctions for grade schools and community col leges if they break the law, but it doesn’t specify what those sanc tions are. No one knows exactly what the ramifications of Measure 9 are, and that’s the OCA’s goal. Make every one afraid, and they’ll shut their mouths. This new, improved Measure 9 came about because six teachers in Portland protested the school dis trict’s sexual diversity efforts and argued that the district was ne glecting to present the viewpoints of those opposed to homosexuali ty. Maybe they’re right. A good teacher, we would hope, would present all of the views of the subject they’re teaching. In a discussion of sexuality, students should be told that some people in society see homosexuality as a nat ural, acceptable orientation. And students should be told that some people see homosexuality as ab normal and perverse. Reading should include information on “reparative therapy,” which claims to be able to make homosexuals into heterosexuals, as well as es says from the many homosexuals who know that their sexual and ro mantic attraction has never been a choice. Education, like journalism, should be about presenting the many sides of an issue. But teach ers must be able to present infor mation; it is unacceptable in a pub lic school to create a climate where teachers are afraid to speak out against harassment of homosexual students because they might be ac cused of “sanctioning” the stu dents’ orientation. That would be uncivil and unfair. Regardless of one’s opinions about homosexuality, we live in the same society and we must treat other humans with basic dignity. That means that in a government funded situation, we need to err on the side of tolerance. Lon Mabon is certainly welcome (and philoso pher John Stuart Mill argued it was everyone’s public duty) to speak publicly about his feelings that ho mosexuality is unnatural. He’s free to shun homosexuals and tell his friends to do the same. There’s a difference, however, when we codify into law any par ticular group’s controversial posi tion. Ideally, the laws of the United States protect people and property from others. Laws are not sup posed to be a forum for carrying out a personal vendetta. The Ore gon Citizens Alliance has been try ing to do exactly that for years. Once again, we must all step up and demand that Oregon remain free and open to dialogue. Measure 9 would stifle dialogue, and be cause of its confusing wording, the law would scare teachers and school counselors into being silent about sexuality. That isn’t educa tion or freedom. If Measure 9 passes, an editorial such as this one could cause a pub lic school to lose state funding, just for having the audacity to write openly about homosexuality. No newspaper wants to lose that right and the Emerald certainly doesn’t want to see the citizens of Oregon lose that right. Vote no on Measure 9. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu lelevised debates pander to the lowest common denominator CAPTAIN SENSIBLE Debates used to be a big thing in this country. In Lincoln’s day. the whole town would gather in the square for hours to listen to the candidates speak on the issues of the day. People back then obviously were either very passion ate about politics or had no lives to speak of, because each speech would routinely go on for an hour. Yet the audi ences for these debates got a glimpse of the candidates as they were. The verbal fireworks of the series of Illinois debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas were legendary. Now, it’s a five-second sound bite written up by a spin doctor in a vain at tempt to keep the public from switching to a re-run of “Charlie’s Angels." The Fox Network was so confident of a rat ings windfall, they scheduled the two hour premiere of their highly-hyped new series right against the Bush-Gore debates, which were showing on the other three major networks. That is the sad state of both the elec torate and the candidates: A public that can’t be bothered with judging who should run the country for the next four years and candidates so stage-managed and rehearsed, their heads would ex plode if they were sideswiped with an unexpected question. During last month’s Rick Lazio Hillary Clinton senatorial debate in Buf falo, N.Y., the most noteworthy things were the attacks. Hillary, in each of her rebuttals, wove in the irrelevant point that Lazio has served as Deputy Whip under Speaker Newt Gingrich. Lazio countered with almost-as-irreievant al lusions to President Bill Clinton’s sex scandal. He also won the prize for most visually stunning moment in the debate: Leaving his podium to confront Hillary with a paper pledge not to use “soft money” in her campaign. In short, de bates are nothing but rehashes of politi cal ads writ large. Television has a large part to do with the declining stature of the debates. The fall of 1960 marked the first televised de bate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Almost immediately, it was their looks that counted, rather than their policies. Kennedy’s youthful looks and ease in front of the camera were in sharp contrast to Nixon’s sweaty and pallid visage. Ronald Reagan, the movie-star turned-politician, was a master of the “new” debate. We all remember his quips on camera: “I know my opponent has been turning age into an issue. I just want to say that I’ll try not to use his youth and inexperience against him.” And “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” are just two of his famous quotes from debates. The Great Communicator did much to turn debat ing from a contest of ideas into a politi cal MTV — style over substance. Just as video killed the radio star, television killed the rational debate. TV has some of the blame. However, they’re no longer dealing with people coming to a town square of their own free will: Candidates have to compete with a cornucopia of other choices. They want to get their message out to the largest number of people. And that means speaking to the lowest common denominator to prevent them from click ing channels. Pat Payne is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at Macross_SD@hotmail.com. Letters to the editor In regards to “Gore environ mental adviser speaks on cam pus" in the Sept. 29 ODE, I would like to commend how you handled the “unexpected confrontation with a large, dead fish.” That article was understand ably dedicated to the zealous Ralph Nader supporters. While not as outspoken, the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group had a strong presence and presented a poster with the signed names of more than 250 University students to McGinty, and she signed it in front of the 200 students that packed the Ben Linder Room. Addressed to President Clinton, the message reads: “From the mighty redwoods of California to the misty pines of North Carolina, our National Forests are a vital part of our country’s heritage. Please issue a final roadless policy that pro vides immediate and lasting protection for all our National Forest roadless areas of at least 1.000 acres, including those of the Tongass coastal rain forest in Alaska — without loopholes, exemptions or waivers. The pol icy should immediately and permanently halt road building and timber sales, along with mining, off-road vehicle use, and other destructive activi ties." In signing this poster, McGinty demonstrated her sup port for a landmark administra tive policy. The next few months are a riticallv important time for the public to urge the Clinton ad ministration and the Forest Ser vit i.o enact a strong final policy with no exceptions before Clin ton leaves office. Come by the University Book store on Tuesday. OSPIRG will be there with a 10-foot-tall Smokey the Bear. Brad Schallert Head OSPIRG Media Intern CONTACT US! The Oregon Daily Emerald wel comes and will attempt to print all letters on >ics of interest to the University community. Letters are limi ?dto250 word1' The Ei m raid may edit any letter for k gth, clarity, grammar, sty nd libel. Let ters may be rr ed, dropped off at EMU Sin 300, ore mailed to the a dresses at the top of the page Also, please feel free tog; our feedback to any individc story or col umn directly a* ur Web site. Feedback vom nts may ap pear in print ir discretion. Keep in touch;
