Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Thursday, February 7,2002
Editorial
ASUO tickets
need to have
eye-catching
campaigns
This year’s ASUO Executive election is
blessed with a large number of candi
dates eager to get involved with student
government. Refreshingly, 10 tickets
will be on the primary ballot Feb. 20, and the
candidates should be commended for their will
ingness to be involved in student leadership.
Now that the candidates have taken the ini
tial step of launching a campaign, they will
have to do their part to engage the voters,
which is no small task with turnout usually
hovering near 10 percent.
Many tickets facing less opposition have
tried to stand out with engaging, eye-catching
stunts instead of the usual poster plastering. In
the 2000 ASUO election, candidates Autumn
DePoe and Caitlin Upshaw had planned to per
form a tap dance before a foot injury ruined
performance plans. Candidates Jay Breslow
and Holly Magner hopped on tandem bicycles
with flying capes and posed for “wacky” Emer
ald photos. The latter duo — and their quirky
antics — won the election.
With so many candidates this year, active and
public campaigning is even more important.
And current executive hopefuls have a lot to live
up to. Gorilla suits, balloons or even an endorse
ment performance from campus a capella band
On The Rocks may be solid options to keep the
campaigns lively and keep voters interested.
Once interest in the ticket is sparked, candidate
platforms may be better received.
If nothing else, it beats taking time to pull down
all those posters — or write the grievances that
follow. If candidates fail to engage voters with
high visibility, they will be doomed to the poor
voter turnout of the past.
Pondering the
Playboy experience
With graduation starting to
feel like a pending reality,
I’ve been looking back a lot
on the past four years. I re
alize I led a fairly uneventful existence
until the Oct. 1999 issue of Playboy hit
newsstands — with my photo in it. I
couldn’t have predicted how much that
one photo could change my life. Of
course, it hasn’t all been fun and games.
When I heard Playboy was coming to
campus my freshman year, I decided to
try out. The impulsive move came partly
from co-workers
egging me on, and the
rest was my remem
bering the tomboy im
age cast upon me dur
ing my formative
years. Regardless, I
thought it was some
thing I would be able
to laugh about later.
At my audition for
the “Girls of the Pac
10” issue, I had to dis
robe down to my
skivvies in front of
Columnist longtime Playboy
photographer David
Chan. Despite my nervousness, my ra
tional side assured me I’d merely be an
other body on a Polaroid in the reject pile.
I was wrong. I was selected, and several
days later I was standing in a bikini with
four other University girls — in the back
yard of a fraternity — surrounded by
yelling frat guys. Back at school the fol
lowing year, just weeks after the issue hit
newsstands — and seemingly the coffee
tables of every frat house on campus
— things began to change.
It may have been the 300-plus “fan e
mails” I received the week after the issue
came out, but suddenly I had a following,
although the idea that any guy (or several
girls) would consider themselves my fans
was ludicrous.
The e-mails didn’t really bother me, al
though they got old really fast. It was even
flattering initially when guys would rec
ognize me on campus. My naivete began
to wear off when I began receiving solici
tations for sex, offers for “beneficial
weekends” in Hawaii and even sexual
threats via e-mail. When a prison inmate
managed to track me down via U.S. mail,
despite an unlisted phone number and
address, I began to get worried.
And that sole photo also gave people
ammunition to use against me, as if my
appearance in the magazine somehow re
duced my integrity, beliefs and all the
positive things about me. Soon, my
hometown was filled with rumors that I’d
be appearing as a Playmate or even
worse, in Hustler, complete with full
frontal nudity. At first I laughed it off as
small town talk, but it hurt that people
would make things up for shock value.
Instead of thinking of the Playboy picto
rial as some great photos taken in a popular
magazine, I began to think more realistical
ly. When I realized that there were guys out
there who were masturbating to my photo,
I didn’t think it was so great anymore.
I have always prided myself on my in
telligence, motivation and hard work.
But the unwanted attention I was receiv
ing had nothing to do with those traits. In
stead, it was derived from a mirage of my
physical being, created with makeup,
great photography and probably a little
Photoshop. I wanted to be congratulated
for good grades or my work ethic, not for
how my cleavage looked.
I look back upon that Playboy issue
with bittersweet feelings. I have had
some feminists accuse me, directly and
indirectly, of contributing to the objectifi
cation and oppression of women. I can’t
really agree or disagree. I do think that I
inadvertently contributed to the objectifi
cation of myself. But at the same time, the
experience taught me more about myself,
the type of woman I want to be — and
what type I don’t want to be. And most
importantly, it taught me that what I think
of myself — not how others see me — is
what’s important. Would I do it again?
Probably not. But I don’t regret where it’s
taken me, even though the path was defi
nitely a biimpy one.
E-mail columnist Rebecca Newell
at rebeccanewell@dailyemerald.com. Her opinions
do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald.
Steve Baggs Emerald
Abortion supporters must use facts, logic to persuade
Editor’s note: The author of this
piece has chosen the term “pro
life ” to describe the political posi
tion opposed to abortion. Stan
dard newspaper practice is to use
the term “anti-abortion, ” as it
more exactly describes the politi
cal stance. The Emerald has decid
ed to let the author choose the
terms of his argument.
With both the anniver
sary of Roe v. Wade
and National Sancti
ty of Human Life Day
having been celebrated recently,
there is renewed talk on the topic of
abortion. Unfortunately, this usual
ly consists of pro-choicers calling
pro-lifers “extremists” or other
names meant to evoke emotional
reactions. Such were the words of
Daniel Peabody in his guest com
mentary (“Question irony in gov
ernment decisions,” ODE, 2/1).
To begin with, Peabody called
pro-lifers “a small but vocal group of
domestic terrorists.” For the record,
a 1999 Gallup poll showed that 42
percent of those polled identified
themselves as pro-life, while 48 per
cent identified themselves as pro
choice and the remaining 10 per
cent were undecided. Pro-lifers
might be vocal, but we’re hardly a
small fraction of the population.
Calling 42 percent of the popula
tion “extremists” and “domestic ter
rorists” is not only disrespectful to
the true victims of recent terrorist
acts; it is also inaccurate. The people
who threaten or harass abortion
doctors and clinics with violent ac
tions do not represent the majority
of pro-lifers, and Peabody knows it.
Pro-abortionists have hidden be
Guest Commentary
Brian
Stubbs
hind the word “choice” so as to
seem as though they are on higher
moral ground. But let's name that
choice; the choice is to end innocent
human lives. To tell a pro-lifer, “If
you don't like abortion, don't have
one” is to miss the point entirely. It’s
akin to saying, “if you don't like
slavery, don't own slaves. ” Nobody
should have the choice to own
slaves, because slavery is wrong for
everybody. Similarly, pro-lifers op
pose abortion because the choice to
end innocent human lives is wrong
for everybody.
The pro-life position rests on a
few simple facts. It’s a matter of ba
sic biology that the fetuses in dan
ger of being aborted are alive and
human. There’s no need for person
al opinions, religious beliefs or talk
of the soul. It’s obvious that these
fetuses are both innocent and de
fenseless. It should be clear from
these two facts that abortion ends
innocent and defenseless human
lives. Any pro-choice response that
seeks to logically persuade pro-lif
ers must take account of those facts.
Liberals are usually proud of
their inclusion and recognition of
marginalized groups within the
human community. But when it
comes to the unborn, many liberals
take a surprising turn and decide
that some human lives should be
ended right after they have begun
simply because they are small, hid
den in the womb, are an economic
burden or unwanted. Many adults
have been labeled as unwanted or
economic burdens; should we end
their lives, too?
As a pro-lifer, I believe that abor
tion is justifiable when it is needed
to save a woman's life; which was
entirely legal even before Roe v.
Wade. Many pro-lifers would add
other difficult situations such as
rape, incest or severe fetal deforma
tion as justifying abortion. Yet
these cases constitute around only
three percent of the roughly 40 m il
lion lives that have been ended in
the name of choice. Abortion seeks
to treat the symptoms of social
problems at the expense of human
life, instead of dealing with the
problems directly. As a society, I
think we can do better.
Brian Stubbs is a graduate teaching fellow
in the physics department.