Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 22, 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 Thursday, April 22, 2004 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor: Jan Tobias Montry Editorial Editor: Travis Willse EIOITORJAL. New Senate decisions contradict each other Last week, the University Senate made renewed efforts to change how administrators will cooperate with government agencies that are seeking student records and was updated on the process of expanding disciplinary procedures for students. These two issues, while unrelated, carry with them con sequences and benefits that must be recognized. In its first order of business, the Senate dedared that re quests for private student records must be deared through the University General Counsd's Office before they are released. "While privacy issues are governed by both state and fed eral law, the University's interest in privacy goes far beyond its commitment to comply with law," the Senate's policy statement dedared. "... Students, faculty and staff should be aware that the University supports their freedom to in quire, discuss and experiment with ideas without fear of im proper government intrusion or public exposure." While bound to have little material impact in the long run — after all, the federal government could fight the ef forts, most likely very successfully — the University admin istration's efforts symbolize faculty disapproval of Attorney General John Ashcroft's secretive and covert attacks on dvil liberties. Further, the action shows that the Senate is looking out for the interests of University students before the ques tionable tactics of outside agendes. In another action that could more drastically change the way students behave off-campus, the Senate heard an up date from the Student Conduct Committee that widened the scope of criminal behaviors that the University can punish. Currently, only students who commit sexually mo tivated crimes off-campus can be disdplined with the Stu dent Conduct Code; the proposed changes would add "any act of physical violence or threat of violence against another student that causes a reasonable person fear of physical harm" to that list. The justification? No law prohibits it, according to Director of Student Ju didal Affairs Chris Loschiavo. And while the conduct code process is meant for educational purposes and won't take the place of criminal prosecution, Loschiavo pointed out, we question the need for double punishment. One wonders, too, whether the University has a legitimate claim on punishing crimes that didn't happen on its proper ty, and that only happens to involve people affiliated with it. For a body that stressed student privacy in the same meet ing, there's at least some hypocrisy in standing by while the Student Conduct Committee expands the University's abili ty to meddle in events that happen off-campus. That being said, if the new rule can curtail harassment and assault, then the outcome may outweigh the unintend ed consequences. 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 Jan Tobias Montry Managing Editor Ayisha Yahya News Editor Travis Willse Editorial Editor Jennifer Sudick Freelance Editor A message from a black male to the white community I like to think of myself as a fairly con troversial student columnist, so I feel compelled to voice my outrage at the ac tions of the Daily Barometer, Oregon State University's campus newspaper. Writer David Williams was fired after penning an April 9 column titled "A mes sage from a white male to the African American community" (I encourage you all to read it at http://barometer.orst.edu). Williams writes, after several qualifying paragraphs, "There is a lack of morality in the black community because African American leaders ... choose to rally around minorities who seem to have little quality characteristics about them." In an editorial on April 13, the Barome ter described the column as "racially insen sitive and inappropriate" and apologized to the black community "who was no doubt disappointed, hurt and outraged." As a black man, I was far more disap pointed in the editors of the Barometer who fired their columnist for writing a column that his editors signed off on for publication. To scapegoat the writer in the face of controversy is pure cowardice. It is absolutely shameful. Let me be clear: The Barometer had many legitimate reasons to fire David Williams. For one, he is a terrible writer. To borrow a line from Grandpa on "Everybody Loves Raymond," 1 could have eaten the alphabet and crapped a better article. That brings us to the second reason Williams should have been fired: He is a plagiarist. I just quoted a line from a tele vision show, but I didn't pretend I in vented the line. Williams, on the other hand, decided to take paragraphs from syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts, change some words using his thesaurus and then pass them off as his own. Here is one example (the first is from Pitts and the second from Williams): "We — blacks — ought to be more thoughtful about who we choose to rally around, ought to be less automatic in leaping to the defense. ... (W)e need to grow beyond the notion that someone deserves our support because he is black and in trouble." David Jagernauth Critical mass "1 think blacks should be more careful in deciding whom they choose to sup port. They need to grow beyond the au tomatic reaction of defending someone because he or she shares the same skin color and is in a dilemma." Unfortunately the Barometer didn't fire Williams because he was an untal ented plagiarist. They fired him because, as they put it, "we have a policy never to print material that is discriminatory, racist or sexist." Asking a "white male," as Williams self-identifies, to avoid racially insensi tive remarks is the equivalent of telling him to stop writing about his true feel ings about race. Racial insensitivity — or let's call it what it is, racial innocence — is so ingrained in white America that it is practically instinctual. Oops. Did I just say something racially insensitive? The conservative rhetoric about out-of control political correctness is dead on (unfortunately conservatives are the worst perpetrators of PC ideology). It is danger ous to use the word racism as a muzzle for any columnist talking about race in a con troversial way. Why are we afraid of con fronting ignorance in print? The stupidity of Williams' column speaks for itself— it is a perfect illustration of the stupidity that the black community has to put up with from white America. Williams isn't a racist. He is a young white male attempting to talk about some thing that he doesn't have the maturity to understand. Should he be punished for the attempt? I certainly don't think so. David Williams gave his message to the black community. Well, here is my message to David Williams: Don't tell the black community what it needs to do. Maybe think more deeply about what the white community needs to do. My message to the Barometer: Apolo gize to Williams, reinstate him and then immediately fire him again for being a pla giarist and a disgrace to student journalists everywhere. Then maybe a few editors should resign. You, too, are a disgrace. And my message to the black commu nity: Williams has a point. We should be "more careful in deciding whom (we) choose to support." Not blacks but whites. We should be more careful in de ciding which whites we choose to sup port. Colin Powell, rethink your support of President Bush. Janet Jackson, rethink your support of Justin Timberlake. And black Democrats, rethink your support of John Kerry. Contact the columnist at davidjagemauth@dailyemerald.com. His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
