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.