Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 9, 2003)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com Online: www.dailyemerald.com Thursday, October 9,2003 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor Jan Tobias Montry Editorial Editor: Travis Willse EDITORIAL DPS conduct fans flames of animosity In recent months, the University's Department of Pub lic Safety has drawn steady fire from students and ASUO. Over the summer, both the department and the University administration pushed for the Eugene City Council to em power DPS officers to write municipal citations for infractions they witness on campus — particularly minor in possession and possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. But ASUO leaders decried the administration for pushing the is sue while much of the population that the authorization af fects — namely students — was away on summer leave. At the public July 14 City Council meeting when offi cials made the decision, ASUO Campus Outreach Coordi nator Shannon Tarvin lambasted the motion, righdy say ing that students didn't have sufficient time to weigh in on the issue. Regardless, the City Council shot down two mod erating amendments, including one that would have pushed the decision back until students returned to cam pus and could offer their ideas. At that same meeting, the council granted the powers with a 7-1 vote. Only a week later, DPS fell out of the frying pan of cam pus criticism and into the fire. In the early morning hours of July 21, former department officer Michael Bonertz pur sued a bicyclist into a pedestrian area with a department-is sue patrol truck, eventually striking him with the vehicle. Twenty-five-year-old Bonertz was placed on administrative leave and resigned shortly thereafter. All in all, a regrettable incident but not a particularly dis tressing one. The more damning revelations would come weeks later, when the department finished its internal in vestigation and produced a final deposition — a document obtained in late September by the Emerald through the state Public Records Law. The investigator ultimately found that Bonertz was guilty of wrongdoing: The report states that Bonertz's actions re flect "lack of awareness regarding not only policy but also the potential liability he subjected the department and uni versity to in his actions." Moreover, the investigator reported that "(i)t was of great concern that officer Bonertz does not view his actions un safe in any fashion and feels fully justified in what he did." This incident so far seems to reflect only the unwarrant ed, misguided decisions of one rogue officer during an oth erwise routine early-moming patrol. Also, his departure is a step in the right direction for the department and for the community that it protects. Disturbingly, rule violations are not limited to Bonertz's file: According to the Bonertz, some officers created unspo ken rules outside the DPS code book that can contradict DPS policy. Pertinently, with the exception of medical emergencies and construction blocking the street, DPS of ficers are not allowed to drive vehicles on sidewalks. But it all begs the question, what circumstances in the campus community, and particularly within DPS, paved the way for such a problematic situation? One of the presum ably screened officers believed that seriously violating the or ganizational rules of DPS is acceptable, and others apparent ly think that at least milder violations are unobjectionable Perhaps there weren't any warning signs that such an inci dent might occur, but the very fart that Bonertz held this mindset suggests that the department can better stress the importance of certain campus regulations to new officers or implement a more goal-oriented training regimen. In light of these negative circumstances, it's particular ly important to recognize that, by and large, DPS has a good long-term track record of serving students and the campus community. But, recent department history also illuminates issues that might currently affect DPS' credi bility performance. Here's to hoping they take this situa tion in stride, and that gross officer misconduct is a thing of the past. EDITORIAL POLICY This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to letters ©dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words. m tv.1 I Vo hi ZIE ELECTION i// Steve Baggs Illustrator Supreme lunacy In July, evangelist Pat Robertson launched what he described as a "prayer offensive," formally known as Operation Supreme Court Freedom. On his television show, the 700 Club, he instructed viewers to kneel down and pray for God to remove a liberal justice from the high court. "One justice is 83 years old," Robertson said, "another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?" He then added: "Retire permanently! Bwuu ha ha haaa!" Well, I am happy to report that all nine justices survived the wrath of God this sum mer and on Monday returned for the official beginning of the 2003-04 term. They will be glad they did, for this year promises to be another wild ride Separation of church and state capital punishment the USA PATRIOT Act, medical marijuana and campaign fi nance reform are just a few of the high-pro file issues that the Supremes are expected to tackle before the year is over. In the coming months I will be writing about these cases, but first I would like to take a brief look back at the top five wackiest za niest or just plain stupid Supreme Court de cisions from last year. Frankly, it is hard to narrow it down to five but here they are: 1. Lockyer v. Andrade and Ewing v. California Twice the Supreme Court upheld Cali fornia's "three strikes and you're out" statute (originally known as "Do not pass go, do not collect $200" statute) by a 5-4 margin. In the first case, Gary Ewing re ceived 25 years to life for stealing golf clubs worth $ 1,200. In the second case, Leandro Andrade received the same sentence for stealing videotapes worth $153. Oh well, look on the bright side: Most Americans don't know about the Eighth Amendment anyway. I'm sure they won't miss it. 2. Kevin Nigel Stanford The court refused to review this case in volving the use of capital punishment on a prisoner who committed his crime as a minor. Seven international treaties pro hibit the practice, yet in 2002 the state of Texas executed more child offenders than the rest of the world combined. In another capital punishment case two years ago, the court ruled that killing the mentally ill was unconstitutional. My ad vice: Convince the justices that minors are mentally ill. I'm looking at all the Timber lake fans. 3. Miller-El v. Cockrell In this case, the court ruled for a black inmate who claimed that Texas prosecu tors used racial bias when they struck 10 of 11 black jurors from his trial. The ruling was 8-1. Who was the only dissenting jus tice? You got it: Clarence Thomas. This guy is about as black as Michael Jackson. David Jagernauth Critical mass 4. Virginia v. Black. A Ku Klux Klan leader, ironically named Barry Black, was found guilty of violating Virginia's anti-cross burning statute during a rally. The ACLU hired a black lawyer to defend Black and Black's right to anti black speech. Anyhoo, in a 6-3 vote — where only Jus tice Thomas defended the anti-cross burn ing statute in its entirety (I'm sorry I com pared you to Michael Jackson. I take it all back!) — the Court ruled that cross burn ing is OK as long as it is done without the intent to intimidate. So if you are burning a cross for the purpose of, say, roasting marshmallows during a camping trip, then Godspeed my friend, Godspeed. 5. Lawrence v. Texas This was the case that really lit a fire un der Pat Robertson's cross. In a shocking 5-4 decision, the court voted to decriminalize all acts of private, consensual and non commercial sex on privacy grounds, put ting a kibosh on the 13 remaining state laws banning sodomy. Even though Oregon's law was repealed in 1972, it was still good news for Oregoni ans and the nearly 90 percent of adults who engage in sodomy nationwide, according to researchers P. Blumstelm and P. Schwartz. It was especially good news for Idahoans who faced a potential five years to life for any thing from fellatio to feuille de rose. Justice Kennedy, by choosing to argue on privacy rather than on equal protection grounds, reversed the high court's contro versial decision in 1986's Bowers v. Hard wick. (I swear, I am not making that name up. It seems like every sodomy case has a suggestive title; for example, Bottoms v. Bottoms from Virginia, or State v. Limber hand, in which the Idaho Supreme Court freed a man who was arrested for mastur bating in a public toilet stall.) The oral argument phase of Lawrence saw its share of juvenile behavior. At one point, Justice Breyer received roaring laughter with his double entendre: "I would like to hear your straight answer." Later, Justice Scalia compared homosexu ality to "flagpole sitting." (For those of you bom after the Depression, flagpole sitting is the lost art of sitting on top of a flagpole before a crowd of onlookers, a fad that swept the nation during the '20s). But my favorite moment was when the at torney defending Texas argued that its law, which singled out homosexual behavior in its definition of sodomy, did not discrimi nate against gays because it banned same sex intercourse for heterosexuals as well. Even Scalia had to crack a smile at that one. Contact the columnist at davidjagemauth@dailyemerald.com. His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
