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:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
Thursday, February 12,2004
BOITORiAL
Bureaucracy
must reduce
waste before
schools cut
In the swelling wake of Measure 30's sweeping failure,
government agencies around the state are looking un
der couch cushions and mattresses for forgotten change
and gearing up to make slash-spending plans.
From forensic science departments to kindergarten
classrooms to food stamp offices, the budgetary blow is
leaving a mark on agencies in every part of the state.
Particularly troubling to the Emerald Editorial Board is
the fallout for the state's higher education: The failure of
the embattled ballot measure is triggering some $7.5 mil
lion in cutbacks on Oregon's college campuses, more than
one percent of the statewide $544 million worth of cuts.
Taking into account scheduled cuts, in fact, the state will
now support only 14 percent of the total University budg
et, University President Dave Frohnmayer said.
While this bodes poorly for medium-term affordabil
ity, not to mention the University's fiscal health, some
of the details of where the $7.5 million will come from,
exactly, seem to still be up in the air. (Oregon Gov. Ted
Kulongoski intends not to let Measure 30's failure con
tribute to tuition hikes this year, Frohnmayer said.)
The Oregon University System proposed cuts to the
chancellor's office, which administrates OUS, during a
Tuesday meeting. Notably, in preparation of the possibili
ty of Measure 30's failure, the state Legislature had identi
fied areas within the University system to be cut; the chan
cellor's office was not included in earlier rounds of these
budget-cut proposals. Now, those proposals have been ad
justed to include cuts to the chancellor's office.
The Emerald Editorial Board applauds this inquiry.
When monetary meanness demands fiscal leanness,
every department should look inward and eliminate
waste accrued over years of swelling bureaucratic proce
dures, and the chancellor's office is no exception. Like
wise, other parts of the system's bureaucracy should be
cut before students feel the brunt of economic woes.
This is especially important among departments of all
state agencies who aren't at the "business end" of their
respective services.
State Board of Higher Education President Neil Gold
schmidt agreed.
"Without (this budget cut adjustment), where we
would be left is that the campuses would have to take
all of this burden on themselves, * he said. •
While OLIS didn't say as of Tuesday what cuts the Uni
versity would be spared, thanks to this adjustment and
others, the fiscal damage to the University in cuts has
shrunk to just $881,000, Frohnmayer reported yesterday.
And that's good news for everyone on this campus.
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 Travis Wilise
Editor in Chief Editorial Editor
Jan Tobias Montry Jennifer Sudick
Managing Editor Freelance Editor
Ayisha Yahya
News Editor
Steve Baggs Illustrator
War against love
Q: What's behind two umbrellas facing the sea?
A Lovers.
It is simple and yet profound. Understand
its essence and you will understand the
essence of love.
I first heard this riddle while studying
Buddhism on the island nation of Sri Lan
ka. I found myself sympathizing with the
two lovers from the riddle It was impossible
to find privacy on the island. Homes were
built open, and if anything covered a win
dow it was a thin transparent cloth.
One day my host mother walked up to
me and said, "I love the way you write."
'The way I write?" I asked.
"Yes, in your diary. I read it when you
aren't here."
She said it so nonchalantly; then and
there I realized that privacy was not consid
ered a right in Sri Lanka.
Religious fanatics have been trying to dis
mantle privacy rights for years in this coun
try, with the help of the Republican party.
They would like to see our right to privacy
disappear because they claim it does not ex
ist within the Constitution.
Actually, they're right The phrase "right to
privacy" does not appear in the Constitu
tion; in fact the word "privacy" is nowhere
to be found. Our modem right to privacy
was created in the 1965 case Griswold v.
Connecticut which established the right for
married couples to use contraception.
I have argued in the past that we should
have the right to privacy, whether it is in the
Constitution or not But I just couldn't believe
that our Founding Fathers never considered
privacy a basic right It was a mystery. Then I
read something that made sense of it all.
In 1776 when somebody said they need
ed privacy, they meant they had to use the
bathroom—the privy. The chamber pots
themselves were called privates. That's why
sea. It is a fundamental human right, grant
ed by the creator. So why are these right
wing religious fanatics so intent on disman
tling privacy rights?
The riddle of the two umbrellas provides
the answer.
It shows that privacy and love go hand
in-hand. The religious right's war against
privacy is part and parcel of their puritani
cal war against love. They rile against pri
vacy rights because they desire to create an
America that offers no safe haven from
their oppressive sexual mores.
It seems clear to me that they care more
about the institution of marriage than they do
about humans in love. They want to know
what you are doing behind those two um
brellas so that they can judge it and stop it
For the majority of Americans, including
secular Republicans and libertarians, this is
a horrific vision of the future. We cannot un
derstand freedom and liberty without priva
cy. We say that what we do behind two um
brellas is only for the sea and us to know.
During Valentine's Day, while you're en
joying a romantic evening with your lover,
imagine the terrible world they are trying to
create. Imagine a world without umbrellas.
Contact the columnist
atdavidjagernauth@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
David Jagernauth
Critical mass
the word is absent from the Constitution.
My guess is that our founding fathers con
sidered the right to take a shit one of those
"inalienable rights" that were "self-evident,"
like the right to eat and drink, which are also
missing from the pages of the Constitution.
Privacy is not something that can be
granted by the state, nor should it be taken
away by that state. Privacy is as natural as the
Church, state can differ on marriage
There has been a large uproar as of late
about the semantic debate over the word
marriage The word's origin is deeply rooted
in religion and
unfortunately
used in govern
ment to help de
fine a group of
people for rea
sons of taxes,
benefits and recognition under law. No mat
ter what laws are passed, no matter what the
feelings of the populace, it is safe to say that
many religious groups will not allow nontra
ditional marriages to take place in their hous
es of worship. An American law or constitu
tional amendment will not change the way
the Pope runs his church.
The need for the word marriage to define
a same-sex union is simply a reflection of a
need for acceptance If that is the goal, pass
ing a law, state federal or otherwise back
ing marital unions of same-sex couples will
do nothing tc> change the attitudes and
acceptance people are aiming for. The
problem is much deeper. It has to do with
ideological differences. If you find that hard
to believe, look at the civil rights movement.
Even after the laws were passed, the issues of
making people accept integration as 'the way
it should be' was a longer and continuing
battle. With the issue of marriage, we are not
only changing our own constitution or law
but also legally attempting to force religious
organizations to accept a law contrary to their
own teachings, and I would venture to say
that is unfair.
The sad thing about this entire situation
is the legal hair-splitting, which ends with
people left on the out and people waiting to
be recognized under law. If anything should
be changed, get rid of the legal implications
of what marriage constitutes and/or have
marriage replaced with 'any sort of civil
union'. This is progressive action and it is un
fair to discriminate against civil unions.
What the church recognizes is its own right;
whatthe government recognizes for reasons
of benefit under law is their right To contin
ue as things are would be an unfair use of a
religious belief to define a legal statute.
So until a time when this is worked out
you can only hope that more acceptance
will occur and some day, maybe the reli
gious groups will accept this too. But fight
ing over a word is silly. Make this debate le
gal and stop fighting over the word. Vermont
and California have done this already by
adding civil unions to its law and benefits.
It's a first step toward redefining the way
people accept things. The passing of a law
will never change the hearts and minds of a
group with 2,000 years of history behind it
and they might just choose to keep their
word as is; change like this takes time. But
that does not mean progress still can't be
achieved, it is just a matter of picking the
right battles to fight.
Nathan von Colditz is a senior majoring in
history.