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