Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Tuesday, March 4,2003
--Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor
Pat Payne
Editorial
Housing’s drug
eviction torched
the bounds of
common sense
University freshman Richard Brooker learned a lesson in
almost Kafkaesque justice last week. Brooker’s room in
Thornton Hall was raided Feb. 22 after the Eugene Police
Department was tipped off by a DPS officer that Brooker was
dealing drugs. All they found was his roommate, a broken
scale and some pipes. When Brooker arrived, they found
only enough marijuana for personal consumption. On this
flimsy evidence, he was charged with being a dealer. The
EPD put him in jail for a night, typically not done for a mere
possession case that got out of hand.
Which it was. The dealing charges were dropped, and
Brooker pleaded guilty to possession.
But the trial doesn’t end there. Almost as soon as charges
were filed and Brooker was incarcerated at Lane County
Jail, University Housing issued a summary eviction notice.
Once Brooker was out of jail, he had only one day to get his
things together and leave.
With no due process, he was kicked out. To add insult to
injury, he has to pay the penalty for breaking the residence
hall contract: $9 for every day remaining.
Summary eviction notices happen without a conduct
code hearing—without any process at all—when housing
determines that there is an “emergency” that might affect
“safety for the residence hall community.” Housing officials
say that in cases like this, they don’t wait for things that hap
pen off-campus.
We think they need to wait. There are very good reasons
why the U.S. criminal justice system works the way it does.
What if the evidence found at the scene is bogus? What if all
the charges are dropped? Theoretically, Brooker could have
been evicted for no crime at all. As it is, the reaction by hous
ing far outweighs his transgression.
The description of this freshman as an immediate threat
to students in the residence halls is bizarre. Certainly, there
have been students who could have been conceivably
greater threats who haven’t been forced to leave the halls.
Sung-min Kim, who had an actual weapon, a loaded BB
gun in his room, wasn’t evicted.
David Gantman, who had several boxes of ammo confis
cated from his room, wasn’t evicted. Neither of these two stu
dents had any intention of hurting others, and both had legit
imate reasons for possessing the items. Yet ammunition and
weapons are still infinitely more dangerous than a broken
scale, some bongs and an eighth of an ounce of marijuana.
Brooker deserves a fair hearing and a process to determine
the threat level he poses. University Housing stepped over
the line, and they should step back to reassess the situation.
tiers to the editor
guest commentaries policy
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are
encouraged, Letters are limited to 250 words
and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors
are limited to one submission per calendar month.
Submission must include phone number
and address for verification. The Emerald reserves
the right to edit for space, grammar and style.
Letter to the editor
Wine, beer taxes have
most impact on poor
State legislators are considering “drastically” increasing tax
es on alcohol beverages, according to “Legislature to consider
wine, beer taxes” (ODE, Feb. 24).
Don’t the legislators realize that alcohol beverage taxes are
highly regressive and have their most negative impact on those
people least able to afford them?
In tough economic times, government needs to tighten its
belt as much as those from whom it extracts taxes.
David J. Hanson, Ph.D.
Chapel Hill, N.C.
1 A A J. A A ■£ A J A A * A A A AAA ..{ 4 % A * '
lime to turn our backs oo the flag
Meghann
Farnsworth
Just think about it
Events and dialogue leading up to the vot
ing on the peace resolution by the Universi
ty Assembly on Friday have been largely
civil and have been channeled into organ
ized meetings designed for debate. Bush has
a large podium on which to state his case,
in addition to inter
national attention,
and those who dis
agree with him have
largely used their “in
side voices” to con
test. Bush was quot
ed by the Associated
Press following mas
sive protests against
an invasion of Iraq
saying: “Size of
protest, it’s like de
ciding: ‘Well I’m go
ing to decide policy based up on a focus
group.”’ Bush should remember that he was
not elected dictator and thus is still held ac
countable by the people.
Now, keeping in mind our respectfully
kept disagreements in Oregon, let me turn
your attention to the other side of the coun
try: the ominous East Contest. Consider the
reasons that Toni Smith, an individual rep
resenting her own opinion, has received
such a strong response to her quiet, respect
fully-disrespectful protest against American
foreign policy.
Somebody out there may be asking:
“Who is Toni Smith?” For a quick recap,
Smith is the college basketball player from
Manhattanville College who, during the
playing of the national anthem before every
game, has turned her back to the American
flag. For those who may be confused,
Smith’s act doesn’t provide solace to Sad
dam Hussein, nor does she, by virtue of her
protest, intend disrespect to veterans na
tionwide. However, once her skewed stance
was noticed, many began to openly criticize
her for disrespecting the flag “(that is) a
symbol of everything that’s good about
America,” as Jerry Kiley told Newsday this
week. Soon, people began to boo her when
she shot free throws or had the ball and
small “protests” took place outside the gym.
The disparity between Smith’s treatment
and die overall apathy surrounding the Uni
versity’s peace resolution is shocking. Hard
ly any pro-war supporters showed up for the
meeting. Only one person, though he op
posed the war, spoke out against vodng on a
resolution. The pitiful attempt to disrupt the
meeting by a small group who chanted
^ *3*/
“USA! USA! USA! ” was drowned out by the
cheering of those in favor. Unlike the peace'
resolution, Smith’s refusal to salute the flag
was an individual act of protest; she did not
gloat over her opinion to anyone nor did she
request feedback on whether her interpre
tation of what the flag “means” is the cor
rect one (and who says there is one?).
One can conclude that the reasons for the
hostility revolve around Smith’s refusal to
face the flag. Those who contested her
stance against the flag are those who rally
around nationalism as if everyone in the
country holds similar views on what “Amer
ica” — which in any case consists of more
countries than just the United States —
stands for. One such protester told The New
York Times: “You can disagree with the gov
ernment’s policies but not the symbols that
every American should stand for.”
There are no symbols or unifying inter
pretations that “every American should
stand for.” Many groups and persons have
Steve Baggs Emerald
been Oppressed under governments and
persons 'allegedly upholding the values of
“America,’” Where "ate ; the protests
against certain Southern states’ continued
use of the Confederate battle flag? The
Confederate flag represents a time of slav
ery and apartheid in America. Although
we’ve legally abolished those forms of in
justices, the fallout from slavery still con
tinues to this day.
Maybe it is time to, as Smith has done,
turn our backs to the American flag— not
in disrespect, but in acknowledgment that
this country does not stand for liberty and
justice for all, save a small minority. In our
search for liberation and peace abroad,
maybe we should instead turn our eyes
back on ourselves and reevaluate the real
international threat.
Contact the columnist
at meghannfamsworth@dailyemerald.com.
Her views do not necessarily represent
those of the Emerald.
Anti-war sentiment borders hate speech
Guest commentary
Free speech — on which this country
was founded — is the right and privilege
of all individuals. With this freedom comes
responsibility, which was jeopardized on
Feb. 18. At the intersection of 13th Av
enue and University Street, a swastika, a
symbol of atrocity and anti-Semitism, was
depicted with “Bush=Hider” written near
by. As Jewish students, we feel that inci
dent warrants commentary.
First, using a swastika for political dis
course is offensive and unacceptable. The
swastika, as utilized by Nazi Germany, is
the symbol that was used to unite a nation
for the systematic extermination of our
ancestors. This was not only the symbol
to pool hatred solely against the Jews, but
also many other minority groups which
were thought to be inferior. The Nazi
swastika has forever become the mark of
anti-Semitism and hate.
There is no denying that President
George W. Bush is a controversial political
leader. However, the comparison of Hider
to Bush marginalizes the horrors the Nazis
committed. Any objective view of recent
history and current events will show that
this analogy is flawed in many ways.
Those responsible should be more
aware of the implications of their actions
and understand that what they did forms
a basis for the resurgence of hate on cam
pus. There is already concern among
many that the revitalization of the anti
war movement has brought around hate
ful thoughts in the masses that are hard to
quell once in progress.
One example of this is the subde but
strong cartoon depiction of Ariel Sharon in
the Emerald. Although wearing a tag labeled
with his name, the artist felt it necessary to
further his drawing with some rather taste
less and offensive additions. In the drawing,
Sharon is wearing a kippah, or Jewish skull
cap — which he doesn’t typically wear —
accompanied by a Star of David which has
certainly never been styled by Sharon.
Sharon is compared to Saddam Hussein,
who bared nothing of his religious or politi
cal affiliation in the illustration.
The blatant signs of Judaism cheapen
the attack on Sharon and expand the as
sault to include all Jews, no matter what
their political beliefs. Although this cartoon
is not the specific matter in question, it is
obvious that the anti-Israel movement is
broadening to include anti-Jewish thought.
This all goes back to the line between free
speech and hate speech.
This is a difficult scale to try to balance be
cause free speech is held so dearly in this
country. There is the case that any censor
ship is a distinct violation of free speech and
will just lead to further suppression of free
expression. This rationale is valid most of the
time, but there must be an awareness that
not all speech is conducive to critical think
ing and sometimes has the reverse effect.
Using hate to rally others behind your
thoughts just creates more mindless follow
ing and doesn’t recognize that there may
be people who are deeply offended by this
absurd demonstration of insensitivity. If
you don’t like someone’s public policies,
then let them know loudly and forcefully.
This does not mean resorting to juvenile
and unreasonable actions.
The time is now to think seriously about
the repercussions of one’s actions and what
the result may be if hateful speech is al
lowed to continue on campus.
Masha Katz, Joel Sokoloff, Robert Galinsky,
Dan Gruber and nine co-signers are all
students at the University.