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
Monday, Febuary 2,2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL
Police chief,
Eugene make
a good match
The Emerald Editorial Board had the opportunity last
Friday to meet with Eugene's greenhorn police chief,
Robert Lehner. Lehner, in the middle of a weekslong, whirl
wind tour of the city's community institutions, talked with
the board about why he took Eugene's top cop position,
his philosophy and what his plans are for Eugene.
Previously of Tlicson, Ariz., where he served in the city's
assistant position, Lehner decided he wanted to try his
hand at chiefing. After comparing lists of cities that suited
his professional intentions and family's needs, he found
his way to Eugene.
After visiting the town and meeting with City Manager
Dennis Taylor, Lehner was eventually hired, in what he
lauds as "a wonderful opportunity."
Lehner's arrival seems to be good news for the commu
nity on several fronts. For one, he fills a gap in the munici
pal hierarchy: Thanks in part to a misfire when hiring a
candidate during the original selection process, Eugene has
been without a permanent police chief for several years
(Thad Buchanan, who has since returned to his position as
captain, served as interim chief most recently.)
Moreover, Lehner and Eugene seem to be a good match
for each other: Eugene and Tucson are "actually quite simi
lar," he noted, adding that major universities have an in
credible impact on the communities around them. (Tuc
son is home to the University of Arizona.)
Lehner said that one of Eugene's strengths is its well-devel
oped neighborhood-association structure, which factored sig
nificantly in his job search. And, promisingly, maintaining an
open, active dialogue with community organizations seems
to be the central theme: While he mentioned no specific pol
icy changes, he emphasized that any policy changes would
be guided by the community's priorities.
Lehner recalled from meetings with community leaders
that, "What the/re telling me is that they want a voice; they
don't feel like they have (one)."
He seems to be very interested in the University's place in
Eugene, too. Particularly, he responded to questions about
the recendy embatded expansion of powers for commis
sioned Department of Public Safety officers.
"(In a meeting with University officials), I did express
concern about something in between a police officer and a
guard or security officer," he explained. He adding that "It's
not that I'm opposed to it. It's that I don't know enough
about it yet."
Regardless of the details, it's a positive sign that the new
chief is paying attention to an issue — although it now
largely seems a fait accompli — that affects students but
was decided without due student input.
"Unless the roles are critically defined, it has the poten
tial to be a problem ,* Lehner said. "So yeah, I'm uncom
fortable. I think that's fair."
Specific issues notwithstanding Lehner promises that his
tenure as chief will be centered around the Eugene community.
"I am just the driver of the bus," he said. "I don't deter
mine where the bus goes."
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.
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brad Schmidt
Editor in Chief
Jan Tobias Montry
Managing Editor
Aimee Rudin
Freelance Editor
Ayisha Yahya
News Editor
Travis Willse
Editorial Editor
Taking a chance
When someone tells you he or she is go
ing to be a parent generally the first thing
you say is "Congratulations!" Not so very
long ago, the next thing you'd say would
be "Are you hoping for a boy or a girl?" In
recent years, we've begun to ask "Do you
know if it's a boy or a girl?" Not so very
long from now, we may be asking "What
did you choose, a boy or a girl?"
If you've got $15,000 to $20,000 and
are willing to undergo In Vitro Fertiliza
tion, the gender of your future children
may no longer be a crapshoot.
Always one for progress, this is one of
the few times I am struck by the need to
question whether this new advancement
in our technology is something that we, as
a society, ought to be embracing.
Where there is a medical need for gen
der selection, my qualms are few. But,
when the motivation behind gender selec
tion is a parent who says "I've always want
ed a girl" or "My life won't be complete
until I've had a son," I begin to worry.
Remember the good old days when
most soon-to-be parents disclaimed a gen
der preference and told you that all they
wanted was a healthy baby?
When parents say that they have a
preference, I can't help but wonder why.
What is it that they feel makes one gender
more desirable than another? What is it
they feel they can do with one that they
Jessica Cole-Hodgkinson
Huh? What? Really.
can't do with the other?
There are those who prefer sons. Some
times it's out of a desire to see the family
name perpetuated. Sometimes it's a sports
thing ("I want to play catch with my boy
in the backyard"). Maybe it's just a linger
ing remnant of the laws of primogeniture
— they want someone to leave their
worldly goods to.
Then there are those who want girls. I've
heard a few people say that they want a girl
so they'll have someone to take care of
them when they're old. Others — usually
women — want a girl so they can do the
whole mother-of-the-bride thing someday.
I am puzzled by all of these people.
In today's world, there is no law that
says that you can't play catch with your
daughter. And, even if you can pick your
child's gender, there's no guarantee that
your child will ever marry, which counters
the notion of perpetuating the name and
the white-tulle wedding. And, if you want
someone to take care of you when you're
in your golden years, it would seem far
more sensible to take the money you'd
spend to guarantee yourself a female child
and pop it into a sound retirement fund.
Life as a child is difficult. So difficult,
in fact, that we spend most of our adult
lives trying to recover. How much more
difficult will it be if we create a situation
where science caters to parents who
don't want a child, but rather want a
particular kind of child?
Contact the columnist at
jessicacolehodgkinson@dailyemerald.com.
Her opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
Feds should not regulate marriage
Jarrett White is obviously not the
"biggest states'-rights guy on campus"
(ODE, Jan. 23).
He might be
for federalism
when it suits
him, but con
sidering mar
riage a federal issue is certainly one of the
most anti-federalist positions one can
currently take.
Not to disparage White, he and I agree
on some issues and I would, in general,
consider him an ally on campus; but on
this issue he is exactly wrong. Marriage has
never been, and should not become, a fed
eral issue. Furthermore, the Constitution is
not the appropriate place to turn to on so
cial policy. A Federal Marriage Amend
ment would undermine the right that
states have always had to enforce and de
fine the marriage contract.
The FMA is, in addition to being a very
quick way to undermine federalism per
manently, supported based often on false
assumptions. The main one, of course, is
that the full-faith and credit clause of the
Constitution would require all states to
GUEST
COMMENTARY
recognize a gay marriage from any state of
the union. This is simply not true. States
do not have to recognize each others' mar
riages between heterosexual couples,
Supreme Court decisions and the Defense
of Marriage Act have made sure of that.
Further, to assume that gay marriage
would somehow undermine "traditional
marriage" is ridiculous. Certainly the sorts
of serial marriages we see in Hollywood,
or even among friends and neighbors, do
more harm to the institution than allow
ing two people of the same sex and/or gen
der to marry ever could.
By leaving the issue up to the states, gov
ernment remains closer to the people, and
each state can have a marriage law with
which its majority is comfortable. If we
must allow morality to be legislated, we
can at least have the good sense to let the
laws be specific to every region. The pur
pose of our system of government is mak
ing sure that governance is done locally,
and at a level near the electorate.
Sadly, many on both the right and the
left have lost sight of this. Our founding
document is not the place that this issue
should be hashed out. The debate over
marriage should rage in state legislatures,
not in Congress.
It is unfortunate, in my view, that same
sex marriage is not a very popular move
ment in America today. However, it is also
my feeling that this will change in time If by
some horrible circumstance the FMA pass
es, it will be nearly impossible to undo.
Whereas state constitutions are relatively
easy to change via voter initiative, amend
ments to the U.S. Constitution are by de
sign, incredibly difficult to pass. And, only
once has an amendment been repealed.
The federal government has never been in
the marriage business, and should certainly
not start now. The consequences of allowing
such an abhorrent amendment to pass into
the Constitution are too great, and we must
not pass the FMA. The fears of the moral
right are severely overstated, and based on
misunderstanding the law. White and com
pany may call themselves federalists, but
their position on the FMA belies a desire for
moral legislation. Fortunately, the Constitu
tion is not so easily tainted.
Timothy Dreier, a senior majoring
in economics, is the editor in chief
of the Oregon Commentator.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Athletics should use money
for benefit of public
A University football player is accused of
assaulting a woman while intoxicated.
Campus alcohol citations are rising no
ticeably. Alcohol rehabilitation needs are
showing no signs of lessening in our area.
As treatment and prevention dollars are
even less likely to exist in the future,
sources of alcohol promotion and accept
ance in our community are important to
identify.
The University's Athletics Department
signed an exdusive contract with an alco
hol company. The terms of these contracts
are kept secret from the public and stu
dents at the request of the beer company.
The result of the contracts is the constant
promotion of alcohol use on radio and
television by the University. The University
also fails to require the Athletics Depart
ment to spend any of the secret alcohol
sponsorship revenues on positive, sober,
community-building messages. Eugene
has many events and potential activities
that the Athletics Department will not in
vest any of its advertising revenues into
promoting.
As a student, I asked the Athletics De
partment to invest a few hundred of its
many millions of dollars of sponsorship
revenues on positive community activities
without success. A token gesture is essen
tial to address the message that the Univer
sity is 100 percent supportive of pro-alco
hol advertising. Ninety-nine percent
would be a vast improvement, as making
one-percent of the messages positive be
gins an effective strategy of supporting
what's good in our community.
Mike Meyer
senior
Family and Human Services program
ONLINE POLL
Each week, the Emerald publishes the
results of the previous poll and the
coming week’s poll question.
Visit http://www.dailyemerald.com to
vote.
Last question: What’s your vote on
Measure 30?
Results: Seventy-two votes.
• Yes — I value the state services that
are at risk: 51.4 percent or 37 votes.
• No—The state should be able to
manage the budget as it stands: 23.6
percent or 17 votes.
• Yes — I don’t want my tuition to go up:
11.1 percent or eight votes.
• I didn’t vote: 8.3 percent or six votes.
• No -1 don’t want to pay more in taxes:
5.6 percent or four votes.
This week: Should Genesis Juice be
forced to pasteurize its juice to stay
open?
Choices: Yes — It’s the law; Yes — It’s
safer for you; No - It hasn’t had
problems in 30 years of business; No —
It tastes better unpasteurized.