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.