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;