Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 10, 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 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor: Ian Tobias Montry Editorial Editor: Travis Willse Monday, November 10,2003 EDITORIAL. ASUO should practice what it preaches In the early hours of Sept. 12, two University students started arguing in Taylor's Bar and Grill. The conflict escalated, an em ployee kicked both students out of the bar and the quibble al legedly turned into a scuffle During the incident, one student's cell phone was destroyed and — whether she fell or was pushed and dragged — she landed on the ground and sus tained injuries. At that time none of this was the business of anyone except a few students and potentially the authorities. Later that morning, the injured student, senior Erica Hass, reported the incident to the Eugene Police Department. On Oct. 8, ASUO Vice President Eduardo Morales was cited for assault and criminal mischief. At this point an official, whose role involves advocating for and representing University students, had been charged with a serious crime. Accordingly, this story became very much the business of the student body. On Oct 22, Morales pleaded innocent to both charges, and he now faces a maximum total penalty of $3,000 and 200 days in jail. Later that day, ASUO spokeswoman Taraneh Foster pre pared a press statement. But local media — the Emerald in cluded — weren't given copies of the release. The Emerald did not receive the statement until Oct. 28 when Morales agreed to an interview; however, a reporter was given the release instead. Regrettably, many students did not learn about the inci dent until the Emerald published an article ("ASUO VP pleads innocent to assault charge") breaking the story Oct. 30, more than three weeks after the charges were filed. Whether Morales is innocent or guilty, this delay reflects unfor tunate violations of both the spirit of open student government and its inherently assumed responsibility to the student body. Foster defended ASUO's actions, noting that "(ASUO) is not required to (notify media). Media are not our constituents." While that's true, local media — again, the Emerald in cluded — would have made an ideal pipeline to disseminate such important information. Moreover, ASUO made no ef forts to notify students — its real constituents. What's more discouraging is that, were the Emerald not to have pursued the story, the student body would not have been notified of the charges at all. "We were never planning on issuing (the statement)," Fos ter told a reporter during an interview about ASUO's decision process. Making ASUO's conduct all the more regrettable is its un related protest of CIA Director George Tenet's campus visit. Some student leaders said tire University fell short of the req uisite openness about Tenet's presence. If an important gov ernment official — presumably one whose presence could likely draw unproductive, disruptive protests itself — is visit ing campus, they argued, he is visiting a student domain, and students should be notified accordingly. "(Tenet's unannounced presence) strikes at the ideals this campus was founded on," ASUO Shared Governance Direc tor Tim Johnson told a reporter during the rally. "Anything on this campus that seeks to neglect the input of students, faculty or staff is anti-democratic and weakens the notion that this campus is committed to collaborative government." ASUO, it seems, believes administrators should notify the student body of the mere presence of a U.S. government offi cial at a private meeting that happens to be at the University. Conversely, not divulging criminal charges against an ASUO official — whose very job description makes him responsi ble to students — is perfectly acceptable. Ironically, as Foster told a reporter during an interview, "(ASUO representatives) are the faces, they are the people you are able to point to, you've elected them." But ASUO feels no obligation to inform you, the student body, of criminal charges against its members. Perhaps the organization should hold a protest outside its own office. EDITORIAL BOARD Brad Schmidt Editor in Chief Aimee Rudin Freelance Editor Jan Tobias Montry Ayisha Yahya Managing Editor News Editor Travis Willse Editorial Editor LETTER TO THE EDITOR Focus should be on foreign policy, not border security I am appalled that after all the steps the gov ernment went through to increase national se curity, people can still get weapons aboard the airlines. Mr. Heatwole even e-mailed the au thorities and told them, and they still took a week to check up on it. I feel that all this em phasis that the government put on national security was for absolutely nothing. What a waste of resources, considering people can still get weapons aboard airplanes. It's absolutely ridiculous how much trouble they put travel ers through and these things still happen. This is a sign that we are approaching the situation the wrong way. Rather than trying to secure our own boarders, I think we should place our resources and emphasis on improv ing our foreign policy. We should try to stop pissing off countries rather than pissing them off and then trying to protect yourself waiting for them to strike back. Moreover, this shows that we can never fully protect our borders. Someone will always find a way through if they want to badly enough. We should focus more on the problem at hand, and then maybe we will get somewhere Andy Mean sophomore psychology ONLINE POLL Each week, the Emerald publishes the results of the previous week’s poll and the coming week’s poll question. Visit http://www.dailyemerald.com to vote. Last question: Should CIA director George Tenet’s presence at the AAU meeting have been announced to the student body? Results: 70 votes • Yes, students should be made aware of what is taking place on their campus: 44.4 percent or 31 votes. • No, students couldn’t attend the MU meeting anyway, so there was no point in announcing anything: 27.1 percent or 19 votes. • George who was where? 11.4 percent or eight votes. • No, students would have protested, threatening security: 10.0 percent or seven votes. • Yes, it would have given students a chance to voice their opinions: 7.1 percent or five votes. This week: Will the draft be reinstated? Choices: Yes, if the Iraqi conflict sharply escalates; Yes, it is consistent with President Bush's agenda; No, the U.S. military is large enough to handle any future conflicts; No, it would never happen — it's too politically costly Leave it to the experts Abortion. I realize that the vast majority of you who read that word already have firmly held opinions on the subject. My aim is not to persuade anyone that they are wrong or vali date those who are certain they are right. In fact, as a rule, 1 avoid discussing this issue al together. It's so emotionally charged for everyone that frank discussion is usually im possible So why do it now? Because in the face of distorted facts, I have with difficulty been sitting idly on the sidelines. Most know by now that there is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that prohibits so-called "partial birth" abortions. For many who are anti abortion, this is being hailed as a victory. But is it? The bill does not prohibit abortions; it pro hibits a particular type of abortion. last time I checked, the argument of those who believe that abortion should not be legal is that the fetus has a right to life. This new bill does ab solutely nothing to forward their cause. In the wake of this bill, if a woman needs (or chooses) to have an abortion, there Ls noth ing in the bill that would prohibit the doctor from performing a more invasive surgical pro cedure There is nothing that would prohibit a doctor from administering chemicals that would cause her body to abort the fetus. Now, whether it be by "partial-birth" or some other surgical or chemical procedure the pregnancy will still be terminated. The fe tus will be aborted. If you believe that the fe tus had life I assure you that it will now be equally dead in all three circumstances. So, why the ban? Well, why not? Actually, it was rather easy. It's hard to muster much support to fight a law like this when the opposition can trot out grotesque images from surgical proce Jessica Cole-Hodgkinson Huh? What? Really. dures that involve lots of blood, gore and fe tus-shaped body parts and say, "We're gonna stop that." Sadly, powerful propaganda tends to shut down the critical-thinking cen ters of the brain at a time when they should be most vigilant. If you believe they've saved fetal lives, color yourself duped. On the other hand, they may well have endangered female lives. Last time 1 checked, veiy few of our esteemed legislators had medical degrees. Even fewer were gyne cologists, and I don't know of a single one who freely admits to performing abortions on a regular basis. So, faced with the choice of leaving the procedure in the hands of qualified medical professionals or taking it upon themselves, our fearless leaders decid ed that Congress knows best. But do they? The text of the newly passed bill begins with two misstatements of fact. "The Congress finds and declares the following: (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consen sus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion ... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited." First according to my trusty dictionary, a consensus is a general agreement or unanim ity, and I can assure you that there is no such thing on this topic. Even the National Right to life Web site — hardly an unbiased source — will tell you that at least 25 percent of the American population does not support a ban on this procedure. The bill goes on to state that at least 27 states have attempted to ban this procedure. Who, other than a politician, would define 54 percent as a consensus? Second, just three short years ago, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled "that significant medical au thority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, (partial birth abor tion) would be the safest procedure." Think I'm nitpicking? Ladies and gentle men, these misstatements are about to be come the law! Is it so unreasonable to ask our lawmakers to refrain from creating re ality by decree? Let me draw a wee comparison for you. In 1897, the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that decreed the mathematical constant pi to be equal to sev eral values — none of which began with 3.14. It then went on to the Senate where to the relief of all architects and civil engineers, it died a quiet death. A local newspaper, however, reported the following, "Although the bill was not acted on favorably, no one who spoke against it intimated that there was anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the Sen ators who spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for legislation." Pity their modem federal leaders haven't the same perspicacity or self-restraint. Contact tfie columnist at jessicacolehodgkinson@dailyemerald.com. Her opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
