. r.
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
Thursday, May 1,2003
» v't » ,
•? * i A'
-Oregon Daily Emerald-—
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor:
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Page Assistant
Salena De La Cruz
Attacking
assault
Sometimes I trick myself into
thinking I live in a very tolerant and
peaceful environment. During Intro
DUCKtion four years ago, the organ
izers didn’t tell my group of wide
eyed freshmen about the climate of
hate on campus, the number of sex
ual assaults or what the University
was doing to change all of that.
They didn’t tell us, probably be
cause they didn’t know these things
were going on.
The problem is, when incidents
happen, a small
majority of stu
dents actually
file reports with
the Department
of Public Safety.
Since the begin
ning of the aca
demic year, the
Department of
Public Safety
has only re
ceived eight re
ports of assault,
compared with 45 incidents report
ed to the Eugene Police Department.
Who knows how many rapes or
hate crimes go on at this school?
The FBI says rape is one of the most
underreported crimes, with nine out
of 10 assaults not reported. When
survivors are so scared or shocked,
the majority of them keep it from
the authorities for a greater fear they
will be publicly shunned, or nothing
will come of it.
But bad things do happen on cam
pus. A case in point is the ordeal a
Julie
Lauderbaugh
Judge Julie
friend of mine went through two
weeks ago when he was walking
home from the bar, and two drunk
en bigots accosted him outside the
Knight Library.
My friend, who is allowing me to
print his story on condition of
anonymity, said he had escorted a
friend home on the east end of cam
pus and was trekking back to his
own place around 3 a.m.
He heard two inebriated men walk
ing in his direction, espousing their
views on homosexuals and the like.
They were whooping and hollering,
all the while sucking down liquor.
Then the pair caught a glimpse of
the stranger walking past and un
leashed their rage. They circled him
like vultures, calling him a “fucking
faggot,” among other ignorant terms.
Then they pushed him back and
forth, belligerent and angry shoves
that threatened to evolve into some
thing much more violent.
Luckily, they stopped themselves
after a few moments of machismo
muscle-flexing and continued on their
way. My friend escaped the altercation
unscathed physically, but scared as
hell, as anyone—gay, straight, black,
purple, whatever — would be after
such a hateful encounter.
The two boys, described as “typi
cal clean-cut, Abercrombie & Fitch
kind of guys” may have been exer
cising their freedom of speech with
their archaic views on homosexuali
ty, but the pair went too far when the
incident turned physical.
Despite all of the feelings of guilt,
V
Steve Baggs Emerald
rage and indignity my friend experi
enced afterward, he has declined to
report the incident because he says
he couldn’t remember the faces of
his assailants, and he didn’t think it
would make any difference.
Going on file may not make any
difference to him, but it would say
something to the administration,
and to prospective students looking
for the tolerant institution I
thought I attended. An institution
located in a state that embraces
such radical ideas as assisted sui
cide and bottle returns.
Let’s not forget, nearly 47 per
cent of Oregonians voted for
Measure 9 three years ago. Not all
of those voters are likely to be as
aggressive as the pair who roughed
up my friend, but I wouldn’t exact
ly call them open-minded.
Until people are willing to be edu
cated about lifestyles different to
their own, people like me will have
to keep writing columns like this. If
you have been assaulted, take con
trol of your situation and let the
authorities know. Because keeping
silent only perpetuates the myth
that these crimes don’t happen.
Contact the columnist
atjulielauderbaugh@dailyemerald.com.
Her opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
Ruling against Nike would have chilling effect on speech
Guest commentary
Ekiitor’s note: An earlier version of
this commentary appeared in The
Oregonian on April 21. This version
was distributed by the Knight Rid
der/Tribune news service and was not
submitted direcdy by Tim Gleason.
Nothing is more frustrating for a
journalist than to have a source re
spond to a question with “no com
ment.” Journalists and the public will
be hearing such responses from busi
ness sources if the Supreme Court fol
lows the lead of the California Supreme
Court in the most important commer
cial speech case in many years.
On April 23 the court heard oral ar
guments in Nike v. Kasky, a case with
the potential to chill “commercial
speakers” and make it more difficult
for all of us to gather information about
business practices and operations.
The narrow question in front of the
court is the legal definition of “com
mercial speech,” a category of speech
that is subject to greater government
regulation than political speech. The
broader question is the freedom of cor
porate speakers and all other speakers
with economic motives to participate
in political debates about business
policies and practices.
The case pits Nike, one of Oregon’s
largest and best-known companies,
against Marc Kasky, a California com
munity activist.
In the late 1990s, Nike responded to
widely publicized criticism of its over
seas manufacturing practices with an
aggressive public relations campaign.
Kasky believed that claims, such as,
“Nike products are made in accor
dance with applicable governmental
laws and regulations governing wages
and hours” were false and should be
subject to the same false advertising
regulations as an ad for Air Jordan bas
ketball shoes. He argued that such
claims were part of an image campaign
designed to sell Nike products.
Kasky filed suit under California’s
business and professional code gov
erning false advertising. TWo lower Cal
ifornia courts rejected the case. The
Court of Appeals found that the speech
in question was not commercial
speech, but rather “part of a public dia
logue on a matter of public concern
within the core area of expression pro
tected by the First Amendment.”
A majority of the California
Supreme Court reversed the lower
courts. It fashioned a broad definition
for commercial speech.
Rather than limiting commercial
speech to material advertising claims
about products or services, the Califor
nia court said that it is commercial
speech when a speaker with an eco
nomic motive makes “factual repre
sentations” to an audience of potential
buyers of a product. Under this defini
tion, any statement offered by the
company in the policy debate over la
bor practices may be subject to the
same regulations used to police adver
tising for shoes and golf clubs.
Three dissenters found that the
speech was protected political
speech. The majority’s broad defini
tion of commercial speech, they
said, would silence important partic
ipants in public debate. One judge
wrote, “The First Amendment en
sures the freedom to speak on mat
ters of public interest by both sides,
not just one judicially favored. Sadly,
Nike is not the only one who loses
here — the public does, too.”
A long list of amici (friends of the
court), including 40 journalism and
publishing organizations, lined up to
argue that the California ruling
threatens not only the free speech
rights of corporations, but also, the
public’s interest in open and robust
debate. Journalists are worried that
a broad definition of commercial
speech will shut down sources in the
business community.
In oral argument the justices ap
peared sympathetic to Nike’s claim
that the California court’s ruling denies
the company the right to respond to its
critics in “an intense debate on the
pros and cons of globalization. ”
At the same time, the court may not
be ready to define clearly commercial
speech as speech that does “no more
than propose a commercial transac
tion,” the definition favored by Nike
and many first amendment advocates.
It will be a lost opportunity if the court
does not draw a bright line between
commercial and political speech.
It is hard enough to get informa
tion about the workings of large cor
porations. The threat of litigation un
der statutes like California’s will
make it even harder. Rather than en
gaging in public debate, corporate
spokespersons will respond to tough
questions with vague generalities.
Nike and other companies have al
ready begun to limit their participa
tion in the globalization debate.
Corporations and other speakers
with economic interests are central
players in nearly every public policy
debate. It is important that they are full
participants so that we can test the
truth of their claims and of our own.
Let’s hope the court takes this op
portunity to demonstrate its belief in
the ability of the journalists and the
public to sort out truth and falsity in
the marketplace of ideas.
Tim Gleason is the dean of the School
of journalism and Communication.
© 2003, Tim Gleason.
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune
Information Services.
Letter to the editor
I’ve seen the futility
of war
I read the Emerald every day. I
commend you for your excellent ed
itorial sensitivity and balance.
Congratulations to Jessica Cole
Hodgkinson for a very fine column
(“Patriotic Dissent,” ODE, April
24) for clearly spelling out her
thoughts on the futility of any war,
especially this one.
I have earned the right to speak up.
I’m 80 years old and served in World
War II, China-Burma-India Theater,
14th Air, 51st Fighter Group, and
Headquarters Squadron. I spent three
years in service, two and a half years
in harm’s way, in the combat zone. I
was so fortunate to survive.
Ah, Iraq! Let’s see, the first 18
months of President George W.
Bush’s presidency, he never once ut
tered the word Saddam Hussein. It
was all Osama bin Laden, and the
president said, “We’ll get him dead,
or alive.” When that didn’t work,
Bush said, “Let’s get Hussein, later
we can talk about North Korea, Syria
and Iran.”
So, we haven’t found bin Laden,
Hussein or the weapons of mass de
struction. We sure bombed the hell
out of Iraq, but we’ll build it up bet
ter than ever.
As we renew Iraq, please remem
ber our economy has tanked and
we’re downgrading education and
health care; not to mention budget
cuts have us reeling.
I have a wonderful quote hanging
on my wall:
“I hate war, as only a soldier who has
lived it can, only as one who has seen
its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”
— Dwight D. Eisenhower
Arthur Golden
Eugene