Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 23, 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 Paternalistic ideals masquerade as diversity '*sS: LONE VOICE IN THE WOODS BRET JACOBSON brmm ^he University announced ' I uhe creation of a Center for y the Study of Social Change JL. through President Dave Frohnmayer’s State of the Univer sity speech Wednesday — yet an other step in the direction of the supposedly noble goal of diversity. The propriety of a public institu tion promoting politically driven social engineering must be thoughtfully questioned. The University obviously be lieves in diversity, which essen tially used to go by the title “Gold en Rule.” That name worked for several thousand years, though ap parently that smacks too much of old-fashioned values for today’s modern activists on the go. The re cently proposed center and the re cently disclosed numbers of mi nority students and faculty are enough evidence of the school’s ef forts in this field. The rationale for diversity seems reasonable. More experiences for students means they will have bet ter critical thinking skills to engage throughout the rest of their lives. Learning about other cultures by putting a human face to the issue also adds an appropriate amount of complexity to issues students will need to deal with later in life. So the rationale is fine, but is it the role of a university to promote one such value over other important ideas? Make no mistake, diversity is a politically driven attempt at social engineering. It promotes respect, a worthwhile cause, while paying only lip service to other important ingredients of character, such as honesty and integrity. The only time you will hear about the virtues of honesty and integrity come in the form of a prohibition against cheating in the Student Conduct Code, while the volume for diversity issues on campus is blaring. Why should a university have the responsibility, even the right, to prioritize your values for you? The paternalistic nature of this diversity push is a real concern. In Frohnmayer’s State of the Univer sity speech, he said, “We are intent on achieving diversity — for the good of our students, for the essen tial nature of our learning process and for the good of the community.” That is indeed a very sweet ef fort, but it is not the role of a public university to indoctrinate its stu dents in any fashion with a con certed effort to draw certain demo graphics to the community. Even while Frohnmayer is clearly a sur passingly intelligent and thought ful man, it is not wise to concede that he is smart enough to decide for individual students the social lessons they are to learn. It would seem wiser to have bureaucrats stick to budgets and class curricu lum. Such paternalism can often turn into judging which thoughts are acceptable and which are not. Does anyone think that this school’s version of populist-driven diversity really allows for all points of views to be expressed? A bias-response team was set up to deal with possible inflammatory issues,closely resembling the quick-response teams em ployed by po lice agencies. There’s a trou bling visible parallel to the policing of crimes and un popular ideas. As a practical matter, while diversity is a good long-term target, there are more immedi ate concerns that pop up and should receive more focus than the stimu lation of social consciences. For instance, Frohnmayer still lists diver sity as his main concern for the University, ahead of the Worker Rights Consortium concerns. Like the President of the United States being called away from long-range efforts to deal witn more time-sensitive toreign affairs, Frohnmayer should have the recovery of Phil Knight’s good will and hefty coffers and the con tinued expansion of Autzen Stadi um on his short-term radar. When important $30 million investments in University infrastructure appear 4 to be tailing through, just maybe that should receive heavy concen tration. While the end result of diversity, the respect for others, is obviously a positive goal, it is incredibly un fortunate that this University is ar rogant enough to believe it is their role to prioritize virtues tor its stu dents and faculty. Bret Jacobson is a columnist for the Ore gon Daily Emerald. His views do not neces sarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at bjacobso@gladstone.uoregon.edu. Fees place unfair burden on students The Eugene City Council will vote Nov. 13 — after postponing a de cision that was supposed to be made at tonight’s meeting — on the new police response fee, which would fine renters $1,000 if police deal with a disorderly party at the same address twice in a 90-day period. We agree that punish ing serious party offenders is necessary, but the response fee action is too broad. When added to the current “party patrol,” the Eugene Police Department threatens to use students for revenue generation and to worsen community relations. Students will party. Some people have big parties, and a few might host shindigs that genuinely get out of con trol. But every party with more than 10 people is not “disorderly,” and students won’t stop partying, no matter what strict measures EPD adopts. So why does EPD have the party pa trol, and why do they want the response fee? Purportedly, the party patrol exists to stop situations such as the 1998 Hal loween riots. And no one wants hun dreds of drunk students in the streets throwing bottles. Preemptive keg checks and weekly visits from police, however, don’t neces sarily correspond to “disorderly” par ties. Police check on parties with regis tered kegs early in the evening, to see if the keg is prematurely flowing. This is n’t responsible patrolling. EPD shouldn’t assume that a party might get out of con trol, or that students might not be able to enjoy themselves responsibly. With EPD using the party patrol as an excuse to continuously knock on stu dents’ doors, why wouldn't we think the response fee is just an excuse to continu ously collect money? That’s the poten tial of the response fee, and that’s why it needs to be revamped. First, there should have to be an actual complaint called in from neighbors be fore the EPD can bust parties and fine students. That’s not always the case. A loud party with, say, 20 people isn’t nec essarily a “disorderly” party. Without a complaint, the police shouldn’t be knocking on the door. Second, 90 days is too long to be hold ing addresses responsible in a campus area. This period needs to be shortened or applied to the names of the people in the house. No one should be fined $1,000 because a prior tenant had a rau cous party. Lastly, we all share the cost of police services, and in a college town, some services are going to be responding to parties. College students pump a lot of money into Eugene’s economy, and thev shouldn’t be the only ones paying for services we’re all supposed to provide. Certainly, serious offenders shouldn’t be draining police funds. Adjusting the re sponse fee to fine third- or fourth-time offenders would be more appropriate. Students do need to understand that it’s not acceptable to endanger them selves or infringe on neighbors’ rights by allowing parties to get out of control. Living in society means respecting each other. But until EPD uses its tools more appropriately, we’re not inclined to give them more. How about more preventa tive interaction between the ASUO and EPD? Why not walk the beat to talk to partiers, rather than bust them for tap ping their keg 30 minutes early? There are things students can do, as well. Talk to the ASUO about the re sponse fee. Call ASUO Legal Services to discuss party citations. Contact the Inde pendent Police Review Project at 343 5128 to work against inappropriate po lice conduct. Call CopWatch at 343-8548 for help filing complaints against the po lice. And at 7:30 p.m. Monday, go to the City Council meeting, sign up to speak during the public forum and give the council input on police action in the campus area. Student voices are needed to stop the response fee from being used inappropriately. Penalties are appropriate for partiers who regularly cause problems. But the response fee, as it is, coupled with the party patrol, sounds more like a means to collect money than a punishment for genuine troublemakers. It needs to be fixed or scrapped. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emer ald editorial board. Responses can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu. Letters to the editor Check the facts before making assumptions I am writing to respond to Mick Briscoe’s letter to the editor (“Right to Bear Arms,” ODE, 10/20). Briscoe’s primary argument in defense of gun ownership was that women need guns to defend ourselves from rape. Here are some statistics re garding women, rape and handguns to counter that assumption: • More than six out of every 10 rapes occur to children and adolescents under the age of 18. Ac cording to the Gun Control Act of 1968, persons must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a long gun and 21 years of age to buy a handgun from a licensed dealer. • The risks of handgun ownership far outweigh the benefits. In 1992, for every one time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 239 women were murdered in handgun homicides. • Firearms were the weapons used in approxi mately seven out of every 10 murders committed in the United States in 1994. Nine out of 10 female victims were slain by a male. Twice as many women were shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives or any other means. Guns ultimately do not keep women safe from sexual assault nor any other form of violence. I would ask that men in the gun rights movement who argue for those rights speak from their own experience. Using women’s fear of sexual assault to bolster your position is both manipulative and disrespectful. Lori Brown staff ASUO Women’s Center
