Oregon Daily Emerald
Thesday, July 5, 2005
■ In my opinion
PRAISE ^Parliament
After approximately 20 years of schooling,
it’s rare that college students are exposed to a
piece of information that is completely new —
something that has been around for ages, but
that the student just never quite got around to
learning about. For me, that tidbit of knowledge
is called parliament. Since learning exactly
what the parliamentary system is, I have been
hard-pressed to find any reason why the Unit
ed States is not attempting to change itself into
such a government.
In a parliament (seen in countries such as
Canada and the United Kingdom), everyone
gets a piece of the pie. Each member of parlia
ment is a representative of a certain section of
the nation. This means that the “Ralph Nader
Syndrome” of recent presidential elections
could be eliminated, because there is no motive
for a member of a third party to vote for anyone
other than exactly who they want acting as
their personal representative.
For instance, in the 2003 Scottish Parliament
election, the Labour Party got the largest num
ber of votes, followed by the Scottish National
Party. In. America, results such as those (i.e. two
parties taking first and second place) would dic
tate a governmental organization made up of
only those two points of view. The Scottish Par
liament, however, may be composed of mostly
Labour and SNP representatives, but will also
include members from Socialist, Green and oth
er parties. This method is especially salient
AILEE SLATER
FURTHER FROM PERFECTION
when looking at a pie chart of the Scottish Par
liament: Although the Labour party is by far the
largest group, Conservatives, SNPs and Liberal
Democrats all received about the same number
of votes. Luckily for those Scottish citizens,
their world views do not have to be compro
mised in order to fit within a two-party system.
Another positive aspect of parliament is the
fact that the Prime minister is chosen by de
bating and voting amongst the members of
parliament. Rather than an election boiling
down to Republican candidate versus Democ
ratic candidate, all members and parties of
parliament must work together to find a com
promise. It is very encouraging to think that
sharply partisan voting could be replaced with
a system based on fairness, compromise and
finding a leader who is truly acceptable to all
members of a nation.
Just imagine what a system of parliament
could do for the United States. Both Republican
and Democratic party members continually
lament the tact that their parties are so divided,
but perhaps that sort of divisiveness is exactly
what this country needs. Third party members
are always faced with an unfair choice: Vote for
who you want to represent yourself and your
nation (and prepare to be silenced by the two
party system); or, vote within the two main par
ties for the lesser evil, and know that you are
decreasing the likelihood that the
Republican/Democrat system will ever change.
In a democracy, you would think that choices
like that should not exist.
Unfortunately, for the third parties of Ameri
ca, having their voices heard is still just a sham.
Citizens who vote for Ralph Nader or Pat
Buchanan do so knowing that their vote literal
ly does not count; the same goes for every other
election of Governors, State Representatives,
etc. It is interesting to consider how many
members of the two main parties would switch
to a lesser known third party if, on a national
level, votes besides Republican and Democrat
actually mattered.
In electing a parliament, every vote goes
toward creating a national government that
is diverse in its beliefs; just like the country
that the group of politicians has been hired
to represent. It is time for the United States
to work toward the positive change embodied
in a parliament.
aileeslater@ daily emerald, com
NEWS STAFF
_ (541) 346-5511
SHADRA BEESLEY
EDITOR IN CHIEF
(iABF. BRADLEY
NEWS EDITOR
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTER
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
RYAN NYBIIRG
PULSE EDITOR
A11.EE S1ATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
T IM BOBOSKY
PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR
WENDY KIEFFER
DESIGN EDITOR
IF.NNY GERW1CK
COPY CHIEF
BRET FURTWANCLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
ALEX CORBIN
ALAN FULLERTON
RYAN JOHNSON
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541) 346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LEIDELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
STEPHEN MILLER
KATIE STRINGER
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KORALYNN BASHAM
KATY GAGNON
KERI SPANGLER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
The Oregon Dally Emerald is pu6
lished daily Monday through Fri
day dunng 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.
■ Guest commentary
Freedom of college newspapers
deserves more protection, not less
Suppose the Oregon Daily Emerald,
the University of Oregon’s student
newspaper, is in trouble financially
and thus depends on funding from
the University administration.
Although its editorial decision-mak
ing remains the responsibility of stu
dent editors, the paper is no longer a
public forum. But its editors resolve to
publish their paper as the “independ
ent” campus newspaper.
When the Emerald publishes news
stories and letters to the editor that
are critical of the University faculty
and administration, the University
president tries unsuccessfully to pub
lish his replies.
He now considers barring publica
tion of any stories and letters to the ed
itor in the Emerald unless the dean of
the University School of Journalism
and Communication reviews and ap
proves them in advance.
Is this so far-fetched a hypothetical
scenario as to be dismissed as ivory
tower gibberish on First Amendment
law? Probably not.
When it comes to their ever-shrink
ing freedom, college newspapers are
less different from high school newspa
pers now than ever.
As the full panel of the 7th U.S. Cir
cuit Court of Appeals stated last
week, college newspapers, if subsi
dized and not a public forum, may be
regulated the way school-sponsored
expressive activities are at elementary
and secondary schools.
The federal appeals court held that
“there is no sharp difference between
high school and college papers.” Yet
Judge Frank H. Easterbrook’s opinion
for the court is devoid of thought.
Easterbrook claims that the maturity
of college students, if factored here,
should be no big deal because high
school seniors are older than some
college freshmen.
Easterbrook also notes schools’ de
sire to ensure that the student speech
that is disseminated under their aus
pices is of high quality and that they
don’t want to be associated with po
litical controversies other than in a
neutral way.
His reasoning is tellingly strained
when he makes a convoluted argu
ment: Regulation of school newspa
pers is a matter of academic freedom
for the university administrators,
which deserves judicial deference, be
cause freedom of the campus press is
subsumed into the institutional auton
omy of the university.
The 7th Circuit Court ruling, which
is clearly the most constrictive decision
for the college press rights, counters
the widely accepted view among state
and federal courts that a university
may not censor its student newspaper
like a high school does.
And the significant but little-noticed
opinion of Judge Easterbrook high
lights the continuing retrenchment in
the freedom of the students’ speech
and press since the late 1980s.
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier that school officials can
censor school-sponsored student ex
pression, including student newspa
pers, if it relates to a legitimate
educational objective.
Yet the federal appeals court’s cava
lier expansion of the Hazelwood doc
trine to the college press will tempt
some authoritarian college administra
tors to resort to their new-found
weapon to control a wide range of
school-funded speech activities.
Thus far, six states have passed laws
to curb the Hazelwood ruling, and two
other states protect student expression
through their administrative codes. But
Oregon is not one of those states. Anti
Hazelwood legislation in Oregon has
failed four times.
Now it is time to reinvigorate the
anti-Hazelwood campaign in Oregon
with more urgency and with a directed
focus on the collegiate as well as the
high school press.
Oregon will not be alone if it launch
es another round of legislative efforts
to seek shelter for the school press. Re
cently, anti-Hazelwood bills have been
introduced in Indiana, Michigan and
Vermont. Those bills would prevent
school administrators from reviewing
articles before publication.
Meanwhile, introduction of anti
Hazelwood legislation will likely con
tinue to be a political issue. Some Ore
gon state legislators will persist in
viewing reversal of Hazelwood as an
ideological proposition by journalists.
Nonetheless, those legislators
should be disabused of their often mis
guided tendency to pigeonhole press
freedom as a banausic agenda for the
media organizations only, not for the
general public.
Legislating anti-Hazelwood would
be an effective option for student
journalists and their supporters. Ore
gon courts by and large have followed
federal case precedent on student
speech rather than applying the free
dom of expression guarantee under
the Constitution of Oregon.
So, we Oregonians should not let the
kind of politically charged anti-Hazel
wood debates that we have seen in the
past drag on. The broad protection of
freedom of speech under our Constitu
tion mandates state legislators to act on
anti-Hazelwood bills promptly if and
when they're introduced.
Kyu Ho Youm holds the Jonathan
Marshall First Amendment Chair at
the University of Oregon School of
Journalism and Communication.
■ Editorial
Investigation
recjuired to
prevent any
recurrences
At the end of June, a fatal shooting oc
curred just outside of Eugene. It wasn’t a
robbery, it wasn’t a drive-by shooting, and
it wasn’t an accidental firing. Fifteen-year
old Jason Michael Porter was shot by a
Springfield police officer.
According, to police accounts, the officer
(whose name is still being withheld) followed
Porter’s vehicle with iights and sirens, until
the car eventually pulled over. When the po
lice officer approached Porter’s window (with
his weapon already drawn), he believed that
the driver was drawing a weapon, and there
fore fired one round through the car window.
Porter was hit in the jaw and later pro
nounced dead at the scene. Porter did not
have a weapon.
As always, there are two sides to any story.
Oregon State Police are conducting an investi
gation into the shooting. Lane County District
Attorney Doug Harcleroad has said that the
shooting was probably justified. Porter was in
possession of a stolen truck, which is why the
officer pulled him over in the first place. Porter
tried to evade the police, so it is logical that the
officer had reason to be edgy.
However, unfortunate though it may be,
police officers cannot always be granted the
same employee leeway that other people ex
perience. As armed enforcers of the law, po
lice officers must exercise impeccable judg
ment in order to keep the innocent safe.
Although Porter may have been a criminal,
there is no doubt that he was still a young
adult who did not deserve to die.
Our nation’s history of police brutality also
sets up a scary precedent, recalled by many
when examining a situation such as this one.
Though it appears that the officer in question
acted with reasonable intentions, the poten
tial for police to take the law into their own
hands is still a threat that rests in the mind of
anyone wondering why a 15-year-old died for
stealing a car.
Even if this particular officer was acting in
what he thought to be the best interest for
himself and his fellow officers on the scene,
police miscalculation can often be the slippery
slope into police brutality. It is an important
responsibility of the job to make quick, in
formed choices; if this officer lacks the capa
bility to evaluate potentially dangerous situa
tions, then perhaps he should be removed
from his current position.
It may be that the officer thought it neces
sary to fire a shot at Porter, but it was the
wrong decision. Most frightening is a recent
statement by a 26-year-old Springfield man
who witnessed the shooting, and claims that
Porter was trying to surrender at the time that
the shot was fired. Dustin Allen Reinke’s testi
mony has been seriously questioned, but he
was the only person present at the scene of
the crime who is neither involved in the po
lice force nor dead. If nothing else, this situa
tion should be used as a starting place for lo
cal police programs to develop more in-depth
training to avoid similar occurrences.
. OREGON DAILY EMERALD
LETTERS POLICY
Letters to toe editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and
should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at toe
Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic
submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 words, ana guest
commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission
per calendar month. Submissions should include phone number and
address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for
space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the
discretion of the Emerald.