Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 14, 2004)
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 Wednesday, April 14, 2003 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor: Jan Tobias Montry Editorial Editor Travis Willse EOITORIAL. Student Senate could be new reality TV show Students who care about how the student government conducts itself and spends student fees should be a tad bit concerned about last week's ASUO Student Senate meet ing. The nearly four-hour-long circus was fraught with troubling goings-on, shady accounting practices and, just for kicks, a little bit of old-fashioned allegations of racism to boot. It all started with a bit of good ol' capitalism: an Ameri can pastime we like to call "charge it!" Fifteen members of the United States Student Association, of which ASUO President Maddy Melton is a member, charged $2,250 to ASUO Accounting Coordinator Jennifer Creighton-Neiw ert's credit card for a trip to Washington, D.C. But apparently, the credit card charge was only a loan! So, Wednesday night, the ASUO Executive came begging Senate for more student money to pay Creighton-Nei wert back. Melton said the request for money came after the group already paid, because she didn't want to go before the Sen ate during Finals Week; we think it was a political ploy de signed to make the senators feel sorry for Creighton-Nei wert's quandary and thus approve the funding. Despite the obvious issue with handing over student money, regardless of the reason, to an employee of the ASUO Executive, it technically isn't against the rules. But the Senate should use greater scrutiny in analyzing such irresponsible funding procedures in the future. The whole debacle is reminiscent of a MasterCard commercial. It plays out something like this: • Inp to Washington, D.C. funded on the backs of stu dents: $2,250 • Chance of USSA students bringing meaningful, tan gible benefits to the University: 1 percent • Ripping off your constituents: Priceless! Well, it's water under the bridge, right? A few students got to lobby, and everybody had to pay. Forgive and for get, right? You racists! Oh, sorry, just emulating the next fascinat ing portion of Wednesday night's meeting. See, the next order of business before the Senate was to consider form ing a special "student issues" committee. The committee would have the sole purpose of deciding whether the In ternational Student Association should get money from the President's Fund. Sen. Rodrigo Moreno-Villamar liked the idea, and he made a motion to create the committee. But then Sen. Joe Jenkins pointed out, rightfully, that it would be unfair to all student groups to create a whole com mittee for the benefit of one particular student group. So Sen. Jesse Harding proposed an interim student-issues com mittee be formed while the rules committee looked into whether the whole idea was breaking any rules. That mo tion was seconded. Then the fun really began because ASUO Vice President Eddy Morales wasn't having any of that! He implied that the senators were discriminating against Moreno-Villamar and stealing his ideas, saying "Rodrigo presented the idea, but now with two white males supporting the motion," it's being supported. As might be expected, nobody agreed with Morales, and even Moreno-Villamar himself defended the second mo tion, saying his ideas weren't being stolen. The second mo tion later passed. Racism is an ugly element in society that must be com bated, but throwing the concept around as a political weapon where it clearly doesn't apply demeans those who have fought more legitimate battles. We would venture to guess that not one senator is motivated by race, and Morales should give them some credit as leaders, students and people. Until some evidence of overt racism materializes in the Senate's proceedings, Morales should just keep his mouth shut. EDITORIAL BOARD Brad Schmidt Editor in Chief Jan Tobias Montry Managing Editor Travis Willse Editorial Editor Jennifer Sudick Freelance Editor Ayisha Yahya News Editor Forced religion "The criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism." — Karl Marx Michael Newdow may be the latest American hero. The California physician stood before the U.S. Supreme Court last month and argued that his 5-year-old daughter should not be pressured into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at school. Newdow should be applauded for standing up for his daughter's constitu tional rights. The separation of church and state as embodied in the First Amendment is a vital constitutional con cept that should not be sold out to right wing interests, as it was 50 years ago. Supporters of the pledge often appeal to tradition to make their case, but few re alize the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 — 62 years after the pledge was written — in response to Cold War anti-Communist hysteria. The phrase is the result of a disgraceful peri od in American history that we should stop honoring. The pledge seeks to enforce conformity of belief, and that concept runs counter to the idea of a nation kept vital by vigor ous debate. There is something Orwellian about 30 youths standing up in class and chanting their affirmations of loyalty to the state. Newdow is an atheist, and he has every right to be concerned about the influence on his daughter of religious beliefs he doesn't subscribe to. It's especially ridicu lous for a bunch of adults to be telling a 5-year-old what to think when they are most likely wrong. It's considered impolite in America to point out the absurdity and foolishness of religious belief. Religion is, and always has been, a rather poor attempt to ex plain where we came from and to com fort us when we cringe at the thought of mortality. When we die, our bodies rot in the ground, and within a couple of genera tions our lives are forgotten. When peo ple can't handle this truth, they grasp at the straws of the faithful. Chuck Slothower Taking issue They go to a building where a preacher tells them how to think and act. Those who are too weak of conscience to have their own moral code are fed one. As the brilliant essayist Christopher Hitchens said in an interview, "They say that a first-century execution gives me a reason to live and was conducted so that I wouldn't have to answer for my actions. I haven't the faintest idea what it would feel like to believe that. It's a belief so ab surd that it can't even be justified by its own rationale." Religion is an easy way out. Whatever problems exist, you don't have to worry about them because it's all part of God's plan. You can strangle puppies and hack babies to little bits as long as you let God know you believe in him and you're real ly, really sorry. That being said, religion is not entire ly malevolent. I admire the role of churches in galvanizing the faithful to help the poor and the hungry, and I bask in the kindness displayed to me by friends who profess a belief in God. But you can help the poor without a man of the cloth telling you to do so, and you can greet people with a smile and a kind word because it's the right thing to do. I am an agnostic because it's the phi losophy of "I don't know, and you don't either." I find it extremely unlikely that God exists, but not impossible. Atheism also is therefore a form of faith that can't entirely be justified. Reciting the phrase "under God" im plies both a belief in God and that reli gious belief is a necessary prerequisite for patriotism. That isn't right. If you want to believe in God, fine by me. However, the founders of the United States were incredibly wise and forward thinking in insisting on a secular state, and religious activists need to keep their hands off of it. Contact the columnist at chuckslothower@dailyemerald.com. His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. LETTER TO THE EDITOR Student votes should go to Petkun, Ravassipour I am writing to give my highest endorse ment to Adam Petkun and Mena Ravas sipour for ASUO Executive. Being the ASUO president and vice president re quires a wide variety of skills and platform issues that will speak directly to the stu dent body as a whole, as well as to underrepresented students on campus. Student parents, students of color, grad uate students, members of the greek sys tem, low-income and non-traditional stu dents would all benefit from having Adam and Mena in office Their plans and experi ence would create concrete changes to make education more affordable, to en sure that students' rights aren't being vio lated on campus and in the surrounding community and to create respect for stu dent interests in the Oregon Legislature I have carefully considered the qualifi cations of the other candidates for the Ex ecutive office and, while they all would serve well in different positions in student government, not one individual or ticket has the combined experience or good in tentions that Adam and Mena have. I urge you to vote for Adam and Mena. Rachel Pilliod senior political science former ASUO President
