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
Friday, March 8,2002
- Oregon Daily Emerald
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Yesteryear's Editorial
Let's Keep
The ‘S'In
Student
Union
The Student Union Board
should be commended on its
proposal to change the name
of the Erb Memorial Student Union.
Just as we would like to see com
munity govern
ment on this
campus, we
would like to
see the Univer
sity become an
integrated com
munity in other
areas too. The
facilities avail
able in the Stu
dent Union are ideal for bringing to
gether all facets of the University
| community.
However, we can also see several
hang-ups in the name change, which
should be considered before any fi
nal action is taken.
The building is supported by stu
dent money. If this is to become a
community building, we suggest
commitment from other areas of the
University are in order to help main
tain the building and its staff.
Presently SU staff salaries are paid
for entirely with student money. Ac
cording to former director “Si”
Ellingson, many staff members
spend about one-third of their time
j on non-student activities. In that
i case some financial support in this
area should be supplied by groups
other than students.
The other thing that bothers us is
the new name itself. What is the
building to be called? Erb Memorial
Union is too long. “Erb” sounds like
somebody had too much to drink.
Memorial Union would become
“MU,” which is the nickname of a
similar building at “Moo U,” an in
stitution with which we should
avoid confusion.
As far as students are concerned,
no matter what the building’s official
name, it will probably always be the
SU. In that case, it might be a good
idea to substitute another word be
ginning with S to maintain the old
nickname. Perhaps “Super” Union.
Or maybe “Social” Union. With the
Legislature in session, we suppose
“Sexual” Union is out.
This editorial was taken from the March 8,1967,
edition of the Oregon Daily Emerald.
University
of Oregon
125th
ANNIVERSARY
Originally
published on
March 8,1967
Conference wasn’t politically biased
I commend the Oregon Daily Emerald for
covering the “Law and Politics of the
Death Penalty: Abolition, Moratorium or
Reform” conference (“Nun’s talk concludes
conference,” ODE 3/4). Contrary to the
claims of critics Steve Doell and Josh Mar
quis, the conference presented a vast and di
verse array of ideas, speakers, and scholar
ship. The work of the Wayne Morse Center
and more than 50 student volunteers made
its success possible. The late Senator Wayne
Morse — an outspoken opponent of capital
punishment — would have been proud.
Aside from Sister Helen Prejean, the top
public figures giving keynote speeches were
Republican George Ryan, governor of Illi
nois, Mark Hatfield, our former senator and
governor, and University President Dave
Frohnmayer, our former attorney general. A
“political pep rally,” as Doell contended?
Hardly, as none of them are running for elec
tive office again. Biased? Perhaps, in favor of
moderate Republicans!
I personally attended a panel featuring
Greg Horner, a deputy DA who prosecutes
Guest Commentary
Philip
Huang
capital murder cases, and Assistant Attorney
General Tim Sylwester, who handles death
penalty appeals for Oregon. They engaged in
lively, yet civil discussion with the ACLU’s
Dave Fidanque. I am astonished to hear Mar
quis’s claim of “lack of debate,” especially
since I saw him in the audience.
The Emerald should have covered the first
day of the conference. The Los Angeles
Times and Chicago Tribune did. Readers
should know why the death penalty is still a
vital issue. Harvard professor Charles Ogle
tree discussed our shameful history of racial
discrimination in administering capital pun
ishment. Governor Ryan explained what
changed this death-penalty supporter’s
mind: While Illinois has executed 12 people
since 1977, it has freed 13 people from death
row. Marquis alludes to Governor Ryan’s po
litical problems at home. The fact that Ryan is
not running for re-election only strengthens
the idea that he is acting on his conscience.
In 1984, Oregon reinstated the death
penalty. Death penalty proponents have had
eighteen years to organize a conference and
examine the fruits of their labor. They have
never done so for fear of discovering system
atic racism, or finding an innocent man. In
stead, people like Josh Marquis prefer to
speak on “Good Morning America” and
browbeat opponents of the death penalty in
the press. Steve Doell and Josh Marquis
proved at the conference they did not wish to
engage in constructive discussion.
Whether we should reconsider the death
penalty is a complex question. I urge stu
dents to investigate the facts and statistics for
themselves, and to keep an open mind and
an open heart. The rest of the civilized
world, where executions no longer occur,
awaits our answer.
Philip Huang is a second-year law student with an interest
in environmental and civil rights law.
Emerald wrong about election grievances
In the Emerald’s recent editorial about the
ASUO denying the press access to vote
counting (“ASUO should grant access to
vote count, ODE 3/4), the Emerald editorial
board made some erroneous claims..that the
elections board would like to set straight.
The editorial referred to the recent griev
ance, which stated that the elections board
denied the press access to vote counting,
and that by doing such the board violated
Oregon Public Meeting Laws. Members of
the elections board are avid supporters of
the rights of the press, however the elections
board did not deny them any legal rights.
The board was not keeping the press out to
be secretive. On Feb. 22 after the primary
election voting ended, the e-board did not
count ballots. The e-board looked over a
printout of results and write-ins obtained
from DuckWeb, typed them up and posted
Guest Commentary
asuo
elections board
them. These results were then made public
immediately following the posting and an
editor from the Emerald even received a
copy of the printout. If the elections board
had used paper ballots then it would have
been necessary to have allowed a representa
tive from each candidate, plus the media, to
be present; however, once again there were
no ballots being counted.
Another point to be made is that accord
ing to the elections board’s interpretation of
the law, there was no violation of Public
Meeting Laws. The Public Meetings Law
ORS 192.610(5) and ORS 192.630(1), applies
to all meetings of a governing body of a pub
lic body for which quorum is required to
make a decision or deliberate a decision on
any matter. The elections board did not
“gather” to make a decision. The board post
ed results in a window. Any single member
of the e-board could have performed the task
of looking over the results and posting them.
The editorial also stated that the elections
board is responsible for knowing the laws
that apply to the elections process. The e
board agrees. Public Meeting Laws were in
terpreted to the best of the e-board’s ability
and according to what the board discovered
there was no violation of the law. When the
elections board requested to see this law,
neither the Oregon Commentator nor the
Emerald had it available. It is interesting that
the media did not know the definitions of
Turn to Election, page 3