Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 26, 2001)
Friday 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 PFC, the cowardly The Programs Finance Commit tee is one of the most important as pects of student government. By overseeing and determining the outcome of the budget process for all ASUO student programs, the PFC maintains student control of millions of dollars in student inci dental fees every year. Or at least it did until Tuesday night, when the PFC voted to ap prove The Insurgent’s budget but put it in a holding account until questions about the independent newspaper’s December issue could be answered. With this decision— ostensibly made to keep the process moving—the PFC showed a lack of courage and threatened IION sabotage. At The Insurgent’s PFC budget hearing, the issue of whether it was respon sible and legal to print such material became the primary concern of the PFC members. As the Emerald editorial board previously opined, we don’t believe it was a re sponsible decision to print what could be inter preted as an incite ment to commit crimes. We think it was a mistake to print contact infor mation for Univer sity animal re searchers in the same issue—and on a page facing the student control ot student money. Questions about The Insurgent surfaced recently, when concerned people started calling ASUO Presi dent Jay Breslow about the news paper’s decision to publish the An imal Liberation Front’s primer— an explanation of that under ground group’s philosophy and a step-by-step guide to arson, break ing and entering, vandalism and A.L.F. primer. What the PFC members over looked, however, is that it is not their mission to determine whether the printing was ethical, responsi ble or legal. Their charge is to ex amine the budgets and the mission statements of student groups and determine whether the groups con tribute to the “cultural and physi cal enhancement of the University.” The PFC did approve The Insur gent’s budget and the group’s mis sion statement. After much discus sion, the members of the committee even seemed to admit that The Insurgent did enhance the University. Their final concern, as expressed by member Aaron Week’s motion, was that if The In surgent is sued over the publica tion of the A.L.F. primer or the re searchers’ contact information, such suits could open the Universi ty, the ASUO and the student inci dental fee to lawsuits as well. Whether a lawsuit against The In surgent would be successful is completely unknown. No one pres ent at the PFC meeting had that knowledge. If a lawsuit was suc cessful, would it open the inciden tal fee to lawsuits? Again, no one at the meeting knew for sure. The important point is that we believe, as Insurgent collective member Willie Thompson ex pressed forcefully and repeatedly, that the PFC has no authority to de termine the legality of any specific content produced by any specific student program. The PFC’s job is to either approve the program’s budget or not, as a whole, based on criteria other than content. The Eyierald would certainly not want the PFC to argue over the acceptability of ideas expressed in our paper, nor in any other student publication. Whether those ideas are legal or not, or acceptable or not, is a matter for higher bodies to decide—such as the Student Sen ate or state and federal courts. By acting to cover its ass instead of acting as a decision-making body, the PFC exposed the student fee process to the judgment of the University administration. What a chilling effect, indeed, on free speech if University President Dave Frohnmayer’s legal counsel decides that student money cannot be given to a student group because that group’s content is offensive. The PFC process is confusing and can seem arbitrary to those out side student government. Making M such an impotent decision, instead of exerting the power that the PFC does have, surely does nothing to » reassure students that their mil lions of dollars are being allocated fairly. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu. Needed: Men to help destroy male power Guest Commentary Lucas Starting today and run ning through the week end, there will be a con ference for men and women at the University of Ore gon titled, “Against Patriarchy: a step toward the abolition of male privilege.” I know a lot of men Eire threatened by the con cept of rejecting their privilege. These men need to ask them selves where this privilege comes from and how others are affected by it. By its very definition, a privi lege or power granted to one person or group requires the dis empowerment of another per son or group. No one can have an advantage without someone else having a disadvantage. In the case of sexism and patri archy, it is men who are granted power and privilege. Therefore, it is men who bear the responsi bility of rejecting that privilege and starting to level the playing field. This conference is not about blaming all men for the existence of sexism and male privilege; it is rather about help ing men take responsibility for the privileges an unfair system has granted them. Let me share the mission statement of the conference. A movement towards the elimination of male privilege, domination, and sexism. Striv ing to create dialogue, educate ourselves and each other, and inspire action. • What is patriarchy, and how does it affect each of us? • What are the practices and results of male privilege, domi nation and sexism? • How do we identify male privilege? • What does it mean to be a man or woman in this culture? • How does this gender polar ization limit us? • If we could get outside of these roles, what kind of people would we like to be? • How does male domination connect to other oppressions, such as racism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, capitalism, government and speciesism? • How do we go about an swering these questions? The aim of this conference is to focus directly upon patriarchy and our roles within it. Through presentation, dialogue and per formance, we hope to broach these questions seriously and playfully, with intellect and emo tion. The goal is an increased un derstanding of our society and how w,e might change it and our selves for the better. To reject, we must identify, understand and fight. The conference, being held in Grayson Hall, kicks off this evening at 5 p.m. in Room 240C with an introduction, followed by a performance and workshop by the Young Women’s Theater Collective. The conference con tinues all day Saturday and Sunday in Grayson Hall. It is free and open to the public. I hope that people of all genders come with open minds, ready to challenge the patriarchy found in all of our society’s institutions of power, which has taken root in our minds and hearts. It’s time to rock the boat! Please visit www.fruitionde sign.com/againstpatriarchy or stop by Grayson Hall any time this weekend. Lucas Spiegel is a member of the AP Collective. Letters to the editor Education should come first If the University persists and pre vails in the Autzen-WISTEC park ing controversy, then I’ve instruct ed the Alumni Association to take me off the list for future solicita tions for cash and support. I’ve got nothing against the Uni versity sports program, but when a so-called institution of higher edu cation gets heavy-handed on behalf of football over a community sci ence and education center — one that benefits possible future Uni versity students — well, that’s not right. Mitch Hider journalism class of 70 Sports valued over schooling I was stunned to discover that the University of Oregon, with the help of Eugene’s City Council, has decid ed that football outweighs science education in the Willamette Valley. As a former employee of both the University and WISTEC, I have a unique perspective. Both organiza tions were founded with education in mind. Somewhere along the line, the University chose, instead, to provide minor-league training to the NFL and the NBA. I suppose we’re fortunate that major league baseball pays for its minor leagues. I left the University three years ago to become director of a plane tarium in North Carolina. Here, people understand that a science museum is a major part of their children’s education. Is Eugene’s re putedly forward-thinking City Council incapable of seeing WIS TEC’s value? Take this quote from City Coun cil member Gary Pape: In an article (“Autzen expansion approved, might force WISTEC to close,” ODE, Jan. 23), he said, “I think WIS TEC would be miles ahead if they went out knocking on doors and doing the hard work we all do (to fundraise).” At least one City Coun cil member has absolutely no idea how hard it is to keep a museum go ing. It’s obvious that with the ongoing expansion of University athletics, the Leo Harris Parkway region will run out of space within the next 10 • years. Why not move the stadium to a more appropriate and accessible location? Eugene and the University have a reputation for being forward think ing. Don’t kill that reputation for the sake of a few more nosebleed seats. James C. Craig director, James H. Lynn Planetarium Schiele Museum of Natural History Gastonia, NC Left Field by Frank Silva
