Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Michael J. Kleckner
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Tuesday, October 2,2001
Editorial
Don t censor songs
because of attacks
Since the terrorist strikes oc
curred three weeks ago on
the East Coast, the Ameri
can people have become fa
miliar with the art of attack. Ter
rorists attacked the World Trade
Center, the Pentagon and a plane
that crashed in Pennsylvania;
hatemongers have been attacking
Muslims and citizens whose
looks suggest Middle Eastern de
scent; and now the First Amend
ment is under attack by station di
rectors employed by a media
conglomerate called Clear Chan
nel Communications.
Clear Channel owns approxi
mately 1,170 radio stations in the
United States and reaches more
than 110 million listeners. The
company was accused of censor
| ship in the New York Times; how
ever, the Clear Channel denies
any First Amendment violations.
According to Clear Channel, sta
tion directors sent to member sta
tions a list of 150 songs they
thought were inappropriate and
could offend some listeners in the
wake of the recent terrorist at
tacks. Other members of the me
dia, including the Emerald edito
rial board, think this suggested
blacklist smacks of overt censor
ship under the guise of sensitivity.
Some of the songs on the banned
list were seemingly harmless tunes
such as John Lennon’s “Imagine,” a
song about world peace, and the
Dave Matthews Band’s “Crash Into
Me,” arguably a love song.
Music is interpretive by na
ture, and we teeter on dangerous
ground as a society when we al
low the infiltration of censorship
even on the airwaves. Potentially
any song that happened to be
playing on the radio the morning
of the attacks could bring back
memories for listeners. It is ab
solutely ludicrous to censor
based on content in any form, es
pecially if the intent is to protect
listeners from remembering the
tragedy.
By blacklisting potentially of
fensive songs, station directors
are also launching an attack on
the intelligence of millions of lis
teners. After all, if a listener does
n’t like the music, he or she can
simply change the channel.
We need to respect
right to dissent
Freedom of the press is
protected by the First
Amendment to the Con
stitution, but apparently
in this period of American histo
ry, members of the press may be
taking their freedom for granted.
The Daily Courier, a Grants Pass
newspaper, recently fired a colum
nist who criticized the actions of
President Bush immediately fol
lowing the attacks of Sept. 11. Dan
Guthrie wrote that he believed
President Bush was “hiding in a
Nebraska hole” instead of return
ing to the White House after being
informed of the terrorism. Guthrie
further criticized the president,
saying that once faced with real
pressure, Bush succumbed to
stress and “bolted.”
After publishing the column,
the Daily Courier received so
many letters criticizing Guthrie
that the publisher promptly fired
him and then printed an editorial
apologizing for any undue anger
the column may have provoked.
The publisher claimed the dis
missal was due to a “personnel
problem.”
Columnists are paid to share
their opinions, despite the popu
larity or lack thereof of those
opinions. Some may agree with
Guthrie’s assessment of President
Bush’s reaction to the terrorism,
while others are welcome to dis
agree. However, when a newspa
per begins firing columnists be
cause the writer’s ideas spark a
negative backlash, the whole
country’s freedom of speech is
under fire.
In this period of uncertainty,
every voice deserves to be heard,
and it is critical that dissenting
voices be heard. The First
Amendment is something we
need to protect as a society, no
matter your opinion of George W.
Bush.
Editorial Policy
These editorials represent the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. The editorial board
members are editor in chief Jessica Blanchard,
managing editor Michael J. Kieckner, editorial
editor Julie Lauderbaugh, assistant editorial editor
Jacquelyn Lewis, community representative 6abe
Shaughnessy. Responses can be sent to
editor#dailyemerald. com. Lette rs to the editor
and guest commentaries are encouraged, Utters
are limited to 250 words and guest commentaries
to 550 words. Please include contact information.
The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space,
grammar and style.
Clarification
In the Monday,
Sept. 24, edition of
the Emerald, the
little gH Grace,
pictured on page 3
with the article
“Voters approve
Broadway
reopening,11 should
have been identified
as the daughter of
both Angela Jaster
and Tony Russell.
Steve Baggs Emerald
to life alone
before marriage
So we've come to college,
that crazy place where
choices hop upon our
doorsteps in neatly
wrapped packages with “try me”
on their tags, all done up in tinsel
and little bows. We look at these
in delight and wear what we've
come to find proudly on our fore
heads or secretly in our closets,
all the while singing, "Freedom!"
But alongside new things that
are tried, there is always that in
herent risk of how the outcome
will affect us. And of the many
fetishes we college kids like to
partake of, one that is particularly
prevalent involves living together
with a boyfriend or girlfriend out
side of marriage.
I must say it is quite the trend
these days, almost as common as
Starbucks coffee cups, and it
seems as harmless. Thus the pop
ular argument: A couple should
live together before they get mar
ried to make sure they are really
right for each other. Couples
should have a trial run, or in other
words, a chance to run away. Part
of the reason for this widespread
case of espousalphobia, fear of
marriage, is the poor experiences
young people have often had in
their own family backgrounds.
With the increased divorce rate,
many young people are hesitant
to make lasting commitments.
The term “wedlock” seems to
embrace all its connotations. Who
wants to be locked? But if mar
riage is ever a goal in the future,
then let me strongly suggest that
cohabitation is not the best pre
requisite. Although it seems like
an advantageous way to test mari
tal compatibility, based on my re
search on the topic, I believe co
habitation actually leads to a
higher divorce rate.
One reason for a higher risk of
divorce is that people willing to
live together are more uncon
ventional than other people and
less committed to the idea of
marriage. A 1997 longitudinal
study conducted by demogra
phers at Pennsylvania State Uni
versity concluded that “cohabi
tation increased young people's
acceptance of divorce” and “the
more months of exposure to co
habitation that young people ex
perienced, the less enthusiastic
they were toward marriage and
child bearing.”
Serial cohabitation should be
avoided because the experience
of dissolving one relationship af
ter another lessens a person’s
ability to deal with and resolve
problems. Research done at Mac
quarie University in Australia
found that couples who lived to
gether before marriage "separated
more often, sought counseling
more often and regarded mar
riage as a less important part of
their life than those who did not
live together before marriage."
I think cohabitation also stems
from the fact that people are more
self-oriented these days. People
know what they want, and they
don't, want anyone coming be
tween them and their goals. Mar
riage means giving a lot up — you
have to be willing to center your
life around and with another per
son. If you ask me, from my
slightly feminist perspective, the
only thing living together implies
is sex without commitment and
free housekeeping for the man. It
is no wonder men are in favor of
it; they get their cake and can eat
it too!
People claim that you never re
ally know what someone is like
until you live with them, but that
isn't true. Sure, people will learn
strange things about their spouse
once married, like they insist on
dancing naked to Bob Marley,
and sometimes while getting up
in the middle of the night to cook
spaghetti. But no matter who you
marry, there are always going to
be a few personal flaws; no one is
perfect, and living together isn’t
going to prove that any more than
spending good quality time with
someone.
We don't need a preacher to tell
us that marriage is good and living
together is bad. We just need to
look at the Statistics of those who
.choose 6ne option over the other.
The facts speak for themselves.
Now young people must choose
and live with the consequences.
A3 forme', I choose marriage.
-J
Tara Debenham'is a columnist for the
Emerald. Her views do not necessarily reflect
those of the Emerald. She can be reached at
taradebenham@dailyemerald.com