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
Wednesday, May 14,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief;
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Page Assistant
Salena De La Cruz
Homosexuality
isn ’t the illness
— bigotry is
Guest commentary
I am writing in response to the guest commentary entitled
“Homosexual men should hide their disgusting acts” (ODE,
May 9). I am ashamed that the Emerald, after recently win
ning an award as the best college paper in Oregon, would
print such hate speech.
I put the words “black,” “disabled,” “woman” or “foreign”
in the place of “homosexual” and think that 10 to 50 years
ago, an article written in the same light about any one of
those groups would have been acceptable. Times have
changed, and people are learning that bashing any identity
group is not OK.
The group that is under attack today is homosexual men.
Some people hold the idea that unless a person is straight,
white, male and upper-class, they do not deserve the
freedom to walk comfortably through the streets. People
who have hate and contempt for others are encouraging
oppression.
It is not appropriate for a public institution, this newspa
per, to embrace this hate speech. The language being used
and the outright hatred harbored are dangerous and do not
encourage dialogue.
To the commentary’s author, Vincent Martorano:
I understand you may not like homosexuals. There are
people I do not like; however, writing an article in which
you openly bash a group of people is frightening. We all have
to live in this world.
A person can either acknowledge difference or embrace
it, or they can hate. Do you realize what an unsafe, poten
tially violent environment articles like the one you wrote
create? Do you realize the culture of violence in our society
and how you are adding to it?
By aligning yourself with “conservatives” you make it
sound as if all conservatives think homosexuality is “dis
gusting.” Hatred and bigotry are not “conservative values.”
Put yourself in the shoes of a person reading your arti
cle who is either homosexual or has a friend, relative, par
ent or professor who is gay. How do you think you made
them feel?
Please think before you vocalize hateful feelings. Think
about how it makes people feel; think about the kind of
world you are encouraging and creating by writing and
speaking such ideas.
Think about the murders, rapes, oppression and other vi
olent acts committed daily because people think it is OK to
hate. Violent actions are condoned by your words.
Think of the people who battle with becoming who they
are or the people searching for happiness, who may read
your article and harm themselves or someone else because
you define them as worthless and abnormal.
Think of someone else beside yourself. Think about the
kind of world you want to create for your children and
your children’s children. If at the end of the day you feel
the same, there is always the saying we were taught in
kindergarten, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say
anything at all.”
Finally, we all have a right to a safe place on this planet.
If someone’s actions do not harm anyone else, leave him or
her be, live your life, and let others live theirs. I hope you
find peace within yourself.
And remember: Hate, not homosexuality, is an illness.
Homosexuals have as much of a right to this planet and this
country as you do.
Daisy Perkins is a senior philosophy and women's studies major.
Letters to the editor
and guest commentaries policy
Utters 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.
Steve Baggs Emerald
UO’s war debate must be remembered
Guest commentary
The 500 or so people who attended
the Feb. 28 meeting of the University As
sembly in the Student Recreation Cen
ter witnessed high academic drama.
There were three principals: biology Pro
fessor Emeritus Frank Stahl, who pro
posed to put the University on record as
being opposed to the war in Iraq; linguis
tics Professor Tom Givon, who chal
lenged this; and University President
Dave Frohnmayer, who presided over
the meeting but did not join the debate.
Inexplicably, Stahl’s proposal for the
politicization of the University failed for
the lack of quorum. While this was dis
appointing to many, for me the action
played out in this aborted meeting has
grown in significance with each passing
day. I now see it as a drama in which the
three principals conspired to deliver a
message of foundational importance for
the University.
Politicization was opposed by five
arguments:
1. The mission statement does not au
thorize the University to engage in par
tisan politics. ORS 352.010 states that
“the president and the professors have
the immediate government (of the Uni
versity),” but it does not give them polit
ical responsibilities or rights.
2. The mission statement proclaims
that “freedom of expression” is “the
bedrock principle” of the University and
that its first commitment is to “under
graduate education” with a goal of “help
ing the individual learn to question criti
cally, think logically, communicate
clearly, act creatively and live ethically.”
However, if the University is politicized,
the orthodoxy endorsed will compromise
academic freedom and the development
of the intellectual and moral virtues.
3. Politicization would place enor
mous burdens on the faculty. If the as
sembly were to endorse an anti-war (or
pro-war) position, then it would soon be
subjected to demands on behalf of every
conceivable cause. Soon it would be de
bating abortion and gay marriages, affir
mative action and reparations and the
rights of cats, dogs, tree-sitters and pot
smokers.
4. Even though the assembly consists
of many highly educated people, most
do not have an expertise in the norma
tive sciences. As a result, the assembly
lacks the competence to issue authorita
tive political pronouncements.
5. History predicts that the tragic des
tiny of the politicized university is to be
come an instrument for state indoctrina
tion. Such was the case with the Roman
and Napoleanic imperial universities
and the Soviet and German universities
of the 1930s. For example, the National
Sociologists required teachers to demon
strate their personal, moral and political
“fitness.” Part of the Dozenture exami
nation was attendance at a “Teachers
Academy” for training in “correct” polit
ical attitudes. Also required was a loyalty
to the Fuhrer.
These arguments assuredly saved the
University from politicization. In the
past, when time or crises were apt to
cause the loss of a collective memory,
people created memorials (statues,
paintings, plaques) to honor their heroes
and to extend their collective memory.
We could do as they did. This me
morial would be in honor of Stahl for
his courage in challenging the status
quo; of Givon for his courage in stat
ing the case against politicization; and
of Frohnmayer for the courage for re
fusing to choose between antitheses
— thus demonstrating the University
can guarantee due process in the con
test of ideas only if it refuses to act as
a litigant in this contest. The memori
al would also remind our successors of
a drama whose message should never
be forgotten.
Henry Crimmel lives in Eugene.
Letter to the editor
Visual distaste cannot justify
universal responses
I am writing, like so many people have, I’m sure, in re
sponse to Dan Johnson’s letter (“’Pro-life’ pictures show
‘crimes’ of abortion,” ODE, May 6).
Specifically, I wish to address Johnson’s argument that the
“eww,” “gross” and “I don’t want to look at that” responses
elicited by the pictures of aborted fetuses is a “deep instinctu
al recognition of those babies’ humanity,” and, therefore, proof
that, deep down, all humans are against abortion.
To see the major flaw in Johnson’s thin logic, considering
the following: You would probably have the same “eew” or
“gross” responses if someone showed you a picture of a
heart transplant (I know I would), and I seriously doubt
that anyone, even Johnson, would consider themselves
“anti-transplant.”
Elizabeth Parr
graduate student
, art history ,
Turning the page
on abortion debate
The Emerald has been pleased to present; many
opinions about the graphic photos displayed in the
EMU Amphitheater by the anti-abortion group
Survivors, but we have run out of room to continue
printing responses.
We recognize this is an important debate; however, it
Is an ongoing one with many outlets on campus,
including in student groupsand in some classes.
Here is a summary of the opinions we have
received hut will not be printing:
Four were in support of an “unborn child’s" right to
life, including two written by women and one by a
man emphasizing the pain abortion causes a father
Three were in support of showing the pictures
One was in support of a woman’s right to choose
One was in support of both sides, emphasizing the
difficulty of such a decision