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.