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
Friday, March 14,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor:
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor:
Pat Payne
Editorial
Hey kids: Party
like an adult
this weekend
It’s almost here: spring break, the time-honored col
lege tradition involving drunken debauchery and other
really fun stuff. However, we want to offer a word of cau
tion. No one needs more riots.
Over the past few weekends, the Eugene Police De
partment has cracked down on minors in possession.
More than 50 MIPs were handed out by EPD in the past
two weeks alone. And we’ve heard stories recently about
less-than-pleasant student interactions with police. And
with the approach of the end of school, students are
ready for release.
We understand that for the most part, the police are
only doing their job. Although we’ve taken issue with po
lice tactics in the past, their conduct with most parties
isn’t part of it. What we fear, though, is the rhetoric on
both sides being amped up by recent party busts. Stu
dents could see the police as enemies who live to break
up parties, and the police could see students as out-of
control enemies who hate the police. Neither of these sto
ries are true, and we worry these hostile feelings could
erupt into more riots.
So take care this weekend. The term will be over soon
enough. Host parties that don’t draw the attention of po
lice, and if they do come to your house, act like an adult.
Spring break should be about having a good time, not
having to call the parents to explain the bill for a riot.
FCC repression
will not happen
between Sarah
Jones’thighs
Score one for the underdogs. Sarah Jones, a indie spo
ken word/rap artist, has recorded works in the past that
show the hypocrisy of society in gender issues. “Your
Revolution” was one of these works — one that fell afoul
of the FCC.
“Your Revolution” uses the words of popular male rap
pers and takes the most offensive parts of their raps —
passages glorifying murder, violence, rape and the sexual
objectification of women — and fires it back at them. It is
a piece of politico-sexual protest that opens with the
words “Your revolution will not happen between these
thighs.”
The FCC saw differently. When KBOO-FM, a Portland
radio station, played “Your Revolution” in October 1999,
the FCC immediately slapped the station with a $7,000
fine and declared the record “indecent.”
Recently, Jones won the battle — after nearly three
years of petitions and vocal protest against her song’s
censorship, the FCC dropped both fine and “indecency”
ruling, and Jones’ “Revolution” rages again.
The irony is that the men from whom she took inspi
ration say many of the same words in their own raps, and
yet the FCC can’t seem to find them indecent. Apparent
ly, it’s fine by the FCC for someone to rap in earnest
about rape, murder and the joys of mindless violence, but
heaven forbid anyone make a piece that protests it! Does
her free speech somehow become less worthy because
she dared to reveal that she does, indeed, have a vagina
and that she’s angry that male rappers seem to think it’s
all right to use it as their playground?
The revolution may not be televised, but thanks to the
First Amendment and people who gave a damn, “Your
Revolution” will be on the radio.
FditArial nnlirv
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses can be
sent to ietters^dailyemerald.com.
HERE ARE 't&UR DOUBLE FOOD rations, fake
Ub. UNIFORM, AND STRAP-ON 5U«c«d£ BOMB
lll/y AtlTN Ci/.UT til * TUf? r^»Tlj
GOOD LUCK/ AND F16KT TIL* THE DEATH
?,,,,,^.
SADDAM
ar lv
Peter Utsey Emerald
Anti-reparations points poorly reasoned
Guest commentary
After reading “Pay one group, pay all,”
(ODE, March 3), I am amazed by De La
Cruz’s oversimplification of the matter of
giving reparations to the descendants of
slaves. I am also astounded by her failure
to provide sufficient factual information
regarding the topic. The only reference
used in the article was an advertisement
by David Horowitz that he placed in 27
out of an attempted 52 college newspa
pers, an ad that many institutions later
apologized for running.
Horowitz claims, and De La Cruz
agrees, that “There is no single group
clearly responsible for the crime of slav
ery.” They go on to claim that “several
races benefited from using slave labor, and
that includes black Americans.” Their
main piece of supporting evidence is that
3,000 slave owners in the antebellum
United States were black Americans. I
questioned this, but found it’s true, ac
cording to “The American Negro” by Ray
mond Logan. However, I also found that,
according to the 1860 federal census,
there were nearly 4.5 million black Amer
icans in the United States. Therefore only
0.7 percent of blacks in America at the
time owned slaves. The same census
counted the number of slave owners at
385,000; meaning that only 0.8 percent of
all slave owners were black. To claim that
black Americans as a race benefited from,
or were responsible for, being enslaved is
absurd — not to mention that some black
“slave owners” had simply purchased the
freedom of their loved ones.
As far as responsibility goes, it’s true
that a few Africans were involved in sell
ing other Africans into slavery. What the
article failed to mention was the fact that
99.2 percent of the people buying slaves
and profiting off their blood and sweat
were indeed wealthy, land-owning, white
men. Had these aristocratic white men
not demanded slaves, there wouldn’t be
a slave trade.
Next, De La Cruz doesn’t have a prob
lem with paying reparations to the “di
rect victims of the injury, or their imme
diate families,” and asks about the
“Union soldiers who died during the Civ
il War trying to free these slaves ... Do
the descendants of these people deserve
reparations?” First, a large majority of
the soldiers fighting the Civil War were
volunteer soldiers. They were not ripped
from their homes, shackled, thrown into
crowded and filthy ships, taken across
the ocean, purchased as soldiers and
forced to fight. Even drafted soldiers did
n’t experience this.
Second, families of American soldiers
killed in action are compensated for their
loss, a practice the military has been in
volved in since the Revolutionary War.
The names of Civil War widows who re
ceived U.S. military pensions can be
found on the Web site of the National
Archives and Records Administration. In
short, attempting to draw a comparison
between Civil War soldiers and slaves is
ludicrous and illogical.
De La Cruz said herself that “slavery
was hideous.” Africans brought to this
country as slaves — and for years after
slavery’s abolition — were seriously mis
treated, to put it lighdy. Who’s to say they
don’t at least deserve an apology?
I suggest De La Cruz do some research
if she wants to construct a convincing and
reputable article. Simply regurgitating the
ideas of another person without investigat
ing their implications, relevance or moti
vation is no way to go about writing.
Ellen Buller is a junior sociology major.
Letters to the editor
Commentator thieves
can’t tolerate free speech
There has understandably been some
confusion revolving around the Com
mentator’s most recent issue in which we
preemptively parodied material from an
other campus magazine. It is important
for the campus to know that the Com
mentator did not steal or plagiarize ma
terial from the Voice, despite a common
impression to the contrary.
The only knowledge the Commenta
tor had about the upcoming Voice issue
were the titles of articles that were
posted on a public Web page. Despite al
legations by the Voice, that publication
has no copyright on hangover cures or
spring break hot spots. The Commenta
tor attached its own parody material to
those titles and did nothing wrong. The
Voice’s response has been one of hys
terics and it is ridiculous that they have
filed a nuisance grievance against all
Commentator staff members.
There is a greater concern surround
ing our last issue, and that is the dump
ing of issues by campus members who
were too cowardly to engage in a war of
ideas. Instead, these individuals chose to
trash over 1,500 Commentator copies.
While, thankfully, the issue can still be
seen online and there is another print
run on its way, such petty acts shouldn’t
be tolerated here. Such action sets a poor
precedent for the free exchange of ideas
at the University and further illustrates
that some consider being offended
grounds to interfere in the constitution
ally protected speech of those with whom
they disagree. It’s sad the Voice and other
narrow-minded individuals would try to
silence our speech. Thankfully, they will
not succeed.
Bret Jacobson
publisher
Oregon Commentator
Pul an end to University
athletics “arms race”
I understand that there will be a rib
bon-cutting ceremony for a #90 million
Autzen Stadium project this spring.
Would it be appropriate to stuff both of
Frohnmayer’s skyboxes with food for the
hunger crisis like the LTD’s “Stuff the
Bus” campaign? Will Frohnmayer invite
the Nike representatives who are part of
the panel studying the state’s hunger cri
sis? Will Frohnmayer give a speech
where he cancels the McArthur Court II
idea and redirect the funds to slow spiral
ing tuition costs or to preserve the 105
homes the University owns and rents to
diverse, low-income families?
I doubt it. They’ll continue their pat
tern of evicting families, bulldozing their
homes and lying about it. Mac Court II at
the fairgrounds is a proposal that shows
just how arrogant and over-reaching Uni
versity administrators and overly coop
erative members of our City Council
have gotten. Congratulations to the
mindful faculty members who have cho
sen to rise up against the “arms race” in
sports spending that threatens the Uni
versity’s future.
Zachary Vishanoff
Eugene