Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 31, 2005)
Commentary Oregon Daily Emerald Thesday, May 31, 2005 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 |EN SUDICK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR JARED PABEN AY1SUA YAIIYA NEWS EDITORS MEGHANN CUNIFF PARKER HOWELL SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS MORIAH BAI.ING1T ADAM CHERRY BRITTNI McCLENAHAN EMILY SMITH EVA SYI WESTER SHELDON TRAVER NEWS REPORTERS CLAYTON JONES SPORTS EDITOR JON ROETMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MILLER BRIAN SMTHI SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR AMY L1CHTY SENIOR PULSE REPORTER JOSHUA LINTEREUR PULSE REPORTER CAT BALDWIN JOHN PALMER PULSE CARTOONISTS A1LEE SIATER COMMENTARY EDITOR GABEBRADLEY ANNEMARIE KNEPPER CHUCK SLOTHOWER JENNIFER MCBRIDE COLUMNISTS ASHLEY GRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR LAUREN WIMER SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER NICOLE BARKER TIM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHERS KATE HORTON ZANE RITE PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS BRET FURTWANGLER GRAPHIC ARTIST DUSTIN REESE SENIOR DESIGNER ELLIOTT ASBURY WENDY KIEFFER AMANDA LEE JONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS SHADRA BEESLEY D ANNIE EVERS COPY CHIEFS KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD JOSH NORRIS SPORTS COPY EDITORS GREG BILSLAND AMBER LINDROS NEWS COPY EDITORS JENNY GERWICK PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR WEBMASTER (541)346-5511 IUDYRIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER LAUNA DE GIUSTI RECEPTIONIST IERED NAGEL PATRICK SCHMERBER HOLLY STEIN IANASWANSON ROB WEGNER CAROLYN ZIMMERMAN DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541) 346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER MAH BETZ HERON CALISCH-DOLEN MEGAN HAMLIN KATE IIIRONAKA MAEGAN KASER-LEE KELLEE KAUFTHE1L MIA LEIDELMEYER SHANNON ROGERS SALES REPRESENTATIVES CLASSIFIED (541) 3464343 TR1NA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KORALYNN BASHAM ANDO KATY GAGNON KF.R1 SPANGLER KAITE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541)346-4381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER TARA OAK! PRODUCTION COORDINATOR JEN CRAML.LT KRISTEN DICHARRY CAMERON GAUT SABRINA GOWETTE JONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub lished daily Monday through Fn day during the school year by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Ore gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. ■ In my opinion Fowl behavior The bitingly witty headline says it all: “U.S. chicken ducks jaywalking fine.” And the looming photograph de signed to coincide with the article ce ments it all: The bottom half of a chick en, faceless, lifting one menacing foot as though preparing to take a step — a step right into the battlefield at the heart of America. Although this particular news serv ice deserves some praise for avoiding a headline play on why the chicken crossed the road, the story’s humorous element ends at the headline. Today it is one lawless chicken, tomorrow, who knows? This seemingly innocuous tale of a California chicken’s devious act is just another straw in the ever-building haystack of chickens turning a blind eye toward the law. And, as long as our society continues to condone these ac tions with a passive silence, this string of civil mischief will not end. After a lawyer was hired to defend the bird, the court quickly threw out a $54 fine. Apparently, because the fowl was “domesticated,” its ac tions did not fall under the same cat egory as the actions of livestock. California law prohibits livestock from roaming highways. Analyzing the ruling in this case, it looks like our government is more than happy to sign off on any and all activities domestic creatures. The line had been drawn in the sand, and AILEESLATER FURTHER FROM PERFECTION the message to citizens and winged creatures of the United States is clear: Equality of law does not apply to the masses. What makes this story even more ridiculous is this interesting tidbit of in formation: The chicken’s owners are now attempting to file harassment charges against the county Sheriffs de partment. Line and Helena Moore sub scribe to the belief of all-too-many Americans today; when they don’t work for the law, it’s better to make the law work for them. Take a moment and think about that fact. It’s the fact the someone sued Wendy’s for a finger in her chili. It’s the fact that the repeat rate of youth crime is still going strong. It’s the fact that world opinion still doesn’t match our government’s utopian view that this country is as it should be. Interesting comparisons can be made between this jaywalking chick en and the sad plight of those animals not so lucky to be considered domesti cated: I’m talking about the Helping Hands organization, built on the backs of monkeys. As detailed by writer David Sedaris, these “slave” monkeys are made to turn on lights, play CDs, apparently create a general sort of “at mosphere” for their disabled owners. One doesn’t even need to ask if our California chicken has ever dealt with the hassles of audio-visual equipment. Why is it that some creatures of this earth are forced into the slavery of housekeeping while others are allowed to roam freely and commit illegal acts? It is important to retain the cultural notion that when you commit a crime, you pay for it. Someone needs to teach this lesson to the chicken, and fast. Do mesticated or not, the laws of America were designed to apply fairly to each and every member of the nation. A high-priced lawyer might have gotten this barnyard fowl off the hook, but citizens of this country can only hope that other chickens will no be so lucky. Fame and fortune may be fod der enough to appear in the gossip sec tion of elitist New York magazines, yet it should hardly be treated as an ex cuse to get around the law. Jaywalking chickens need to get the message, and they need to get it now: You will be prosecuted for your crimes. aileeslater@ daily emerald, com ■ Guest commentary Allegations of intolerance should not prevent educated discussion A little more than a week ago, an informal three-on-three debate took place between students from a histo ry class, Middle East Foreign Policy after 1933, and students represent ing the American Israel Political Af fairs Committee and Hillel, a cam pus Jewish organization. The debate centered on Israeli policies as they relate to the Palestinian-Israeli con flict still underway today. I have never been called Anti-Se mitic before. I am a dedicated stu dent who has taken the time to learn the comprehensive and nuanced his tory of the Palestinian-Israeli con flict. After reading dozens of books, chosen for their scholarly and jour nalistic merits and balanced per spective, I have found myself funda mentally opposed to Israeli policies and sympathetic to the Palestinian national struggle. At the conclusion of the debate, the audience responded with mixed reactions and perhaps more ques tions than answers. It was agreed by both my team and our opponents from AIPAC-Hillel, that a second de bate, slightly modified in format and thesis, would benefit all who wanted to attend. This week, I am an Anti-Semite, or so it seems I am being told. It seems that Israel’s strongest student advo cates at the University, representing one of the most powerful lobbies in the nation, have pulled out. A laundry-list of complaints about the debate or future debate was cited, none of which I felt were irreconcilable given the concessions I offered. The only complaint that I could not re spond to was the feeling 1 was being accused because of my own bias and ulterior motive. The undercurrent beneath the de cision to withdraw from the second debate is accurately reflected by the comments of the pro-Israeli audi ence members, many of whom al leged that the first debate was mere ly a forum for Israel-bashing and anti-Semitic rhetoric. These allega tions miss the point, but deserve a response nonetheless. A crucial and profound element of totalitarianism is the identification of state’s policies with the people, socie ty and culture of the state. This ele ment is manifest in the conviction that criticism of the state reflects a criticism of the people, society and culture and thus, those who offer such critiques are enemies of the peo ple who occupy the state. While not uncommon in the West, students of history will recognize this ideal employed in its most im pressive fashion under leaders like Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Furthermore, those with a good Jewish education should recognize the origins of this. It goes back to the Bible in which the evil King Ahab, in the second book of Kings, condemns the Prophet Elijah for his criticism of the King. Because the King identifies himself with the people, society and culture, Elijah’s criticism prompts the King to pronounce him a “hater of Israel.” It’s unfortunate that this ideal survives in the present. Since the occupation began in 1967, Israel has instituted a set of Draconian laws in the West Bank and Gaza that it has used to seize Pales tinian land and water, construct all Jewish settlements and build infra structure in continuation with a plan to subdivide the territories, effective ly eliminating access to Jerusalem’s holy sites and to other cantons. In a unanimous opinion, the justices of the World Court ruled these actions grave breaches of the Geneva Con ventions. These war crimes exacer bate tensions present in both the Palestinian and Israeli populations. They are incompatible with a pursuit of a negotiated political settlement. While my criticism of Israeli policy contains serious assertions, I consid er them fair. I, like Elijah, am not a “hater of Israel.” I have nothing but admiration for the Jewish “nation,” which describes the collective body of those who share the Judaic faith. We believe that both sides benefit from an academic exchange of ideas and arguments on the subject. The University community deserves to hear these arguments, and though at times the arguments may be divisive, concealing the problem is not an ap propriate response. We urge the pro Israeli community at the University to join the discussion in a tolerant and rational way. Don’t hide behind pho ny allegations and feigned offense. Brett Seyler is a senior in mathematics and political science ■ Editorial Hate actions still a threat at 'liberal' universities Earlier this month, Southern Oregon University experienced a series of events that seem anachronistic to the tiny, liberal town of Ashland. A 19-year-old male student was harassed as he walked off of the SOU campus after his attackers perceived him as gay. About seven men verbally attacked the student then followed him back to his residence hall. Later that evening, one of those men spit on the victim. Unfortunately, it was not an isolated inci dent. SOU has seen a wave of anti-homosexu al sentiment, one of the largest examples be ing a series of threatening fliers. Posters have appeared in student unions and residence halls, with phrases such as “You Queers can vanish to volcanic ash, and reappear in hell with a can of gas and a match. I hate QUEERS and God hates QUEERS! And the Bible says that Homosexual Offenders should be put to Death!” and “(T)he Bible says that homosexual offenders should be put to death ... So help eradicate homophobia now. Kill the queer.” An upsurge in hate speech and hate crimes at a small campus in Southern Oregon has se rious implications that certainly carry over to the University, as well as Oregon itself. As much as we liberal college campus students may praise ourselves on a lifestyle and set of beliefs actively opposing crimes against mi norities, the truth is, hurtful ideology still runs rampant among us. Although the posters may not have been physically dangerous to members of the ho mosexual community, their effects are far reaching. Using religion to condone murder is a scary thought, but nothing new. It is the same set of beliefs that greased the wheels of the Ku Klux Klan. Unfortunately, it seems that the Northwest is more susceptible to hate crimes than we thought. Citizens who believe that hate doesn’t live in their neighborhood should take a good look around. College campuses are not removed from the atmosphere of anti-gay sentiment, and neither is the government. Is the presence of hate speech and hate demonstration among stu dents really that surprising when one consid ers the government’s mixed opinions over to the legality or morality of homosexuality? Luckily, Southern Oregon University has shown its colors, and they are a rainbow: SOU President Elisabeth Zinser has proposed a 10-point plan to respond to the posters and vi olence, and community discussions between faculty, students and others have also oc curred to address the issues facing the cam pus gay community. As the University works to perfect its issues with diversity (over class enrollment based on race, transgender students in the media, etc.), we can only hope that issues will be ad dressed with the same tact as those on the SOU campus. Community conversation, as well as a sharp stance against hate speech and hate crime, are always key to creating a school climate that is safe space for all. City, state and national government should take note. CORRECTION In “Undefinable," which ran Friday, Toby Hill-Meyer was in correctly identified as bisexual and as a Programs Finance Committee senator. Hill-Meyer prefers the term genderqueer and was an EMU Board senator. The Emerald regrets the error.
