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
Tuesday, March 2,2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
IE 01X0 RIAL.
ASUO allows
double-taxing
of students
at UO events
‘'Under no circumstances shall any incidental-fee paying student
...be denied the right to participate in or attend an activity or event,
fund-raiser or otherwise, that is sponsored in whole or in part by an
incidental-fee funded (Programs Finance Committee) Program
based solely on that student's inability to pay the requisite donation
or admission charge." (Student Senate Rule 13.7).
Attention students: You are currently being screwed.
And, it seems, the ASUO Executive doesn't care. The
ASUO Student Senate doesn't care, either. Neither does the
EMU Ticket Office.
That's right, every time you pay for a ticket to a cultural
event on campus that is funded, in full or in part, with inci
dental fees, you are effectively paying a second time for some
thing that you've already paid for (being "ripped off," in the
parlance of our times). And the student government evident
ly doesn't feel it necessary to tell you about it
Each year, students pay millions in mandatory incidental
fees. A portion of that amount is distributed to student groups
on campus. These groups then may take the allotted money
and fund events. These events — recent examples include Ut
sav and "The Vagina Monologues" — are funded with your
money. When students later pay extra for a ticket to the stu
dent-funded event, that's unfair double taxation.
A prime analogy is the newspaper you're reading right now.
Each year students pay through incidental fees what is effec
tively a subscription cost and in return students can expea
to pick up a free copy of the Emerald every day, if they so
choose Now, if the Emerald installed change deposits on dis
pensers and forced students to pay an additional 5 cents per
copy, how fair would that be?
Aauu rcesiaent Maciay Melton told the Emerald that she
isn't advertising the rule — which would be as simple as
telling the Ticket Office to post a sign outside its office stating
a student's right to a free ticket — because she thinks it should
be changed. Essentially, Melton would rather see students suf
fer double-taxation than enforce a logically and ethically
sound principle.
Senate President Ben Strawn said he thinks the lack of
knowledge about the ticket rule is a problem, yet he said it is
not the responsibility of the Senate or the Executive to edu
cate students about their right to free tickets. Director of Tick
eting Services Mary Barrios said it's not her responsibility ei
ther, and she refused to post a sign informing students of their
right. Instead, students are directed to the student group,
where more complications can be expected due to most stu
dent groups' likely ignorance to the rule.
But the question remains: What good is the student gov
ernment if it's unwilling to enforce its own rules or educate
students about their rights? Can we trust people with our
money who flaunt rules at the real expense of the very peo
ple whose interests they're obligated to defend?
Melton argues that if students can't be double-taxed, stu
dent groups will need more incidental fees to pay for events.
She added that students who aren't interested in events would
be forced to pay more in incidental fees. This may be true, but
it doesn't change the fact that students who pay once for a
service may be too poor to pay for it a second time, nor does it
change the fact that an ASUO rule isn't being enforced.
It's insulting that the Executive has the audacity to screw
over strapped students in the interest of a few student-group
events and at the expense of fairness to its constituents. Sure;
it's not technically the Executive's or the Senate's job to adver
tise any particular rule, but certainly it falls within the spirit
of their roles as student fiscal authorities. A student govern
ment that has rallied so hard to keep tuition down in the stat
ed interest of saving student dollars, but refuses to enforce this
rule, smacks disturbingly of hypocrisy.
As long as the rule exists in the Green Tape Notebook, stu
dents ARE entitled to free tickets to incidental-fee funded
events. So if you, Joe or Jane Student, can't afford a ticket and
can't get a free one at the Ticket Office or from the student
group, then go to the ASUO Executive office, located at Suite 4
of the EMU (on the ground floor), and demand enforcement
of the rule. Get a copy of the Green Tape Notebook, or view it
online at http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~senate/docu
ments/greenTapeNotebook.pdf. Don't leave until you get a
straight answer — something that this administration lacks
all too often — and by all means, don't let this institution
steal your money.
"t£>»1
A Stem warning
Eric Layton Illustrator
I don't remember, did Janet Jackson
have a pair of red horns protruding from
her head during the Super Bowl halftime
show? Did she carry a pitchfork instead of
a microphone?
Poor Janet. Since Feb. 1, she's been
blamed for everything from sex scenes in
movies to the Haitian rebellion.
Her latest offense, apparently, is getting
Howard Stem booted from the airwaves.
Last week, media conglomerate Clear Chan
nel Communications dropped the shock
jock from its phalanx of radio hosts (though
his show continues to be syndicated and
available in several markets). Stem immedi
ately dropped Jackson.
"They've been after me since 1992 and
the/re having their way with me," Stem told
Reuters news service. "Then Janet Jackson
whipped out her boob and it's all over."
We're watching media theory in action
these days, and it's about to get uglier than
Ron Jeremy. With Congress and President
George W. Bush both decrying indecency in
the media, soon we're going to dive hands
first into Lake Morality. Soon we're going to
start violating free speech, one of the great
est freedoms we're afforded in this country.
I'm not a big Howard Stern fan; I think
anybody with a brain bigger than a wal
nut can see through his humor. But he's
Peter Hockaday
Today is Hockaday
occasionally funny and he's popular.
Heck, he's probably the only radio host with
his own movie (the dassic "Private Parts").
Clear Channel's offidal stance is that
Stem was dropped because of some offen
sive banter with Rick Solomon, the man
who knows Paris Hilton better than the rest
of us. I've read the transcript and without
going into much detail, it doesn't seem
much more offensive than the schlock Stem
normally spews. One caller used a very of
fensive word, but you can't blame the host
for his lame callers.
Stem's theory is that Clear Channel
dumped him because they wanted to wash
their hands of him and use extra soap. On
Thursday, Clear Channel executives ap
peared in front of a congressional commit
tee hearing on indecency in the media.
This is where the red light goes on in my
head. If Clear Channel wants to ax Stem for
business reasons, that's fine If he lost popu
larity or crossed the final line of indecency,
great. Drop him. But if they cut him because
of pressure from Congress, that's wrong.
I want our culture to tone down the inde
cency a bit I'm not a conservative dude but I
think about raising a son or daughter in a
world of exposed breasts and graphically
sexual radio programs, and I shudder.
But I want decency to happen naturally.
That's the beauty of living with capitalism.
If we stop listening to Howard Stem, maybe
he'll turn the volume down on his loud
mouthed art. If we stop buying Christina
Aguilera's albums, maybe she'll put some
clothes on.
If we protest indecency in the media, it
will disappear. But we don't need the gov
ernment to help us out. We can't have the
government set the line of what's moral and
what isn't. Because that line is where capital
ism ends and communism begins.
That's right, Janet Jackson is a communist
Wait, maybe not. But I still blame her for
that uprising in Haiti.
Contact the columnist
at peterhockaday@daityemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald,
Freedom comes with consequences
No one seems to comprehend the double
edged sword of freedom these days, as evi
denced by Jerome Garger's recent diatribe
("Fuss over Jackson hides deeper problems
with U.S. media," ODE, Feb. 23). Freedom
right to not do something without fear of ret
ribution. This understanding of basic per
sonal liberty is what drives the essence of
free-market capitalism: the notion that indi
viduals exercising their freedom to do and
not to do influences the goods and services,
including media, that are a part of the whole
If we are to presume then, that this is the
case we must also presume that what drives
a corporation like CBS is the will and desire
of its customers. If the will and desire of its
customers are commercials of purple pickup
trucks and CBS chooses pink Geo Metros,
is not merely the
ability, free of ret
is as a whole that
ability plus the
then the consumers of CBS — in this case,
the people who choose to watch the pro
grams CBS offers — can choose, as an exten
sion of their freedom, not to watch CBS any
more, and instead watch Fox or NBC. If Mr.
Garger truly holds dear the freedom that he is
speaking of, then he would have to embrace
this as a natural consequence of such free
dom. This exercise of freedom, then, can be
said to influence what is aired. CBS has to
compete with the likes of Fox, NBC and
ABC, and thus must respond regularly to the
desires of its customers' wishes in order to re
main a viable network
The more explicable and begged question,
then, is this: How would Mr. Garger remedy
the situation? Choose a group of educated
people to decide what is proper for the pub
lic to watch, see and absorb? That's rather un
democratic, don't you think? Perhaps even a
bit "elitist"? The answer lies with Mr. Garger
himself. The people should decide They are
in fact, deciding right now, much to the cha
grin of Mr. Garger. They call into places like
CBS and demand that series like the Ronald
Reagan biography not be aired. CBS and oth
er news-media outlets do intense polling of
those who watch their station for informa
tion about viewing and reaction to shows of
fered, and most importantly, they monitor
the viewing itself. It is perhaps the most dem
ocratic system currently available, and yet
those of Mr. Garger's clique despise it with
such impunity and hatred as to boggle the
reasoned mind.
But why is this? It cannot be because the
system is anti-democratic, for the evidence
does not establish this. Rather, it is because
the evidence points to a public who as a re
flection of their own freedom censor them
selves, an idea that baffles the pre-pubescent
minds of Garger and those like him. So be
academically and intellectually consistent,
Mr. Garger, and accept the fact that some
times in a popular vote, you will lose Be gra
cious about it, and be a good loser.
Anthony Warren is a sophomore studying
political science.