Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemenild.com
Online Edition:
www. dailyemerald. com
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Monday, January 28,2002
Editorial
Commentator
staff should
(toe the line’
The Oregon Commentator, a self-pro
claimed conservative campus periodi
cal, has somewhat successfully repre
sented the underrepresented
conservative voice at the University for 19
years. Though the newsmagazine is not aligned
with a specific political party, it has long taken
pride in its right-wing slant, and included
wording in its mission statement alluding to it.
But the Supreme Court recently ruled that
groups such as the ASUO Programs Finance
Committee must maintain “viewpoint neutrali
ty” when allocating student fee money, in order
to maintain an open marketplace of ideas on
campus. To comply with the ruling, all Univer
sity groups applying for fees must remove polit
ical affiliations from their mission statements,
as outlined in the ASUO Green Tape Notebook.
During the Jan. 18 Commentator budget hear
ing, PFC postponed voting on the group’s budg
et because it found the periodical’s mission
statement advocated political views.
Things have obviously changed since the
Commentator first adopted its mission state
ment, and the time has arrived for the publica
tion’s leadership to adapt the statement so the
group will be able to continue receiving fund
ing from PFC. This move would allow the pub
lication to promote its conservative philosophy
within the pages of its magazine instead of in
its mission statement. There is no need to fight
this particular battle with PFC when the solu
tion is simple.
To add injury to insult, the Commentator
decided to file a grievance with the ASUO
Constitution Court against PFC on Jan. 25 af
ter it had appealed PFC’s decision. Filing a
grievance in an act of defiance is both child
ish and a waste of ASUO’s time. All Universi
ty groups should have knowledge of PFC’s
viewpoint neutrality requirement and should
know to edit their mission statements to ac
commodate the committee. Just because the
Commentator has had its statement passed by
PFC in previous years doesn’t mean it isn’t
time to update it.
All student groups that seek budget ap
proval from PFC must adhere to its rules or
they risk losing money. Requiring student
groups to remove political content from their
mission statements is a condition designed to
help the PFC maintain the diversity of ideas
on campus. The Commentator is an important
conservative voice at the University, and it
should work with PFC to ensure the publica
tion’s future on campus.
Editorial Policy
This editorial represents the opinion otthe Emerald
editorial board. Responses can be sent to
letters@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor
and guest commentaries are encouraged. Letters
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.
Editorial Board Members
Jessica Blanchard Julie Lauderbaugh
editor in chief editorial editor
‘Be where you are’
Our lives seem to be constantly
focused on the future with lit
tle thought about the present
moment. Almost devotedly,
we dance to the incessant tick of the
watch. We plead with the clock to move
faster at work. We stare at it in class, al
most as much as we would an attractive
person. It is the first thing to greet us in
the morning with its neon-flashing
smile. In fact, we are
so close to our
beloved clocks that
we’ve given them
faces and hands and
personified them to
the level of _
speech.
So, what does the
clock say?
Despite our
deep-seated
devotion to "V.
these devices, Jy
time — in all re- ^
Tara
Debenham
Columnist
ality — has no
concern for us /
whatsoever, and I think we are over
ly concerned about it. I’ve heard the ^
theory that if one were to travel
faster than the speed of light,
time would stop. Obviously,
this is an unfeasible idea for any per
son on Earth. Yet, it seems as if people V
have actually set out to test this theo
ry, considering the way we run from
place to place, one moment to the next,
without pausing. The problem is the
more we try to clutch time in our fists,
the more time slips through our fingers.
It is definitely one of those strange, para
doxical concepts we humans have set up
for ourselves.
I’m not saying we should have a marc!
against day planners, burn all clocks and
go back to calculating time by the height
of the sun . After all, to a certain extent
we have to plan the future. But perhaps
too much thought goes into what will
happen and not enough into what is hap
pening at the moment.
From the brilliant words of my sixth
grade math teacher, “Be where you
are.” If we try to challenge time, it be
comes the unstoppable enemy. If we try
to forget about time, it will sneak be
hind and eventually pounce on us.
What we need to do with time is just
start living it. Live in the present.
Whether outside in the rain, or in a
freezing lecture hall or weighing ba
nanas at Safeway, how do you feel right
now? We have five senses, but do we
take full advantage of these? How much
more could we experience if we gave
attention to each? The present moment
is the moment closest to eternity. It is
without beginning and without end.
Although the verb “to be” is one of the
first learned when studying languages, it
is a verb few of us have actually mas
tered. I am certainly no example of self
mastery. You would think I’m tied to
some invisible yo-yo, the way I bounce
up and down and end up tied in knots.
But I am realizing, through much self-in
flicted pain, that I’m only really living if I
let myself think about the present and
take time to experience it.
So now that you’ve read my few words
of wisdom, I’m sure you all feel inspired
to parade around campus singing “Let it
Be,” by the Beatles, even if I do sound
like one of those strange, poetic romanti
cists. But for whatever it’s worth; just sit
back and take life in. Consider the fine
oval quality of the lentils in your soup
and the lovely streaks the never-ending
rain makes against the window. Consider
the moment.
E-mail columnist Tara Debenham
at taradebenham@dailyemerald.com. Her opinions
do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald.
Poll Results:
Every week, the Emerald prime the results of our online poll add the
poll Question for next week. The poll can he accessed from the main
pap of our Web site, www.dailyemerald .com* We encourage you
to send us feedback aboutthe poll questions and results.
Last week’s poll question:
Whom would you nominate to be an honorary Olympic torch bearer?
Results: 109tota! votes
> University President Dave ffohnmayer—13.8 percent or 15 votes
> Jeffrey Grayson—3.7 percent or 4 votes ■
> Eupne Mayor Jim Torrey—2*8 prcent, or 3 votes
> Frog—29.9 percent, or 32 votes
> PEC Chairwoman tWIary Elizabeth Madden™ 35.8 percent or 33
votes
> Dont care—141 percent, or 16 votes
This week's poll question:
I Should University computing officials be allowed to monitor III
heavy bandwidth users?
The choices:
> Yes, heavy bandwidth users decrease access for all users
: > Yes, students who usethe system illegally should lose their
internet privileges
> No, the University should have a policy to protect students
from communication surveillance
> Don’t know
Letter to the editor
Seat belt laws restrain freedom
Seat belt laws deny, through prior restraint, a person’s right to de
termine health standards for his or her own body, the ultimate pri
vate property. Not using a seat belt is a state-created, victimless crime.
While seat belts might save some people, there is ample proof
that people have been injured and killed because of them in some
accidents. Some people are alive only because they didn’t use seat
belts. In those cases, the victims are subject to fines for not dying in
the accidents.
The government has no constitutional authority to maim and
kill some people just to save others. It has no right to take chances
with a person’s body. If a doctor attempted to force you to use a de
vice, take a drug or have surgery, he or she would be violating pa
tients’ rights — your right to decide what measures you take to pro
tect your own body. They would be subject to prosecution under
the law. When politicians force you to use their device, they violate
that same right and face no consequences.
Because we feel safer wearing seat belts, studies show we tend to
drive more recklessly. Therefore, money we spend for traffic safety
should focus on responsibly educated drivers and safer roads and
vehicles. Preventing accidents will save fives, alleviate the cost of
property damage and, most importantly, give us freedom.
There is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use. However,
mandatory seat belt laws should be repealed in order to restore lib
erty in the United States.
William J. Holdorf
Chicago, III.