Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Thursday, July 14, 2005
FORT]&NUVi
Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
SHADRA BEES LEY
EDITOR IN CHIEF
GABE BRADLEY
NEWS EDITOR
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTER
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
AILEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR
WENDY KIEFFER
DESIGN EDITOR
JENNY GERWICK
COPY CHIEF
BRKI FURTWANGLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
ALEX GORBIN
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 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.
■ Guest commentary
Support the troops with more
than a yellow ribbon or sticker
Drive just about anywhere and it’s
easy to see there’s a war on. No, not
just the war in Iraq, but the one being
fought on the back of our cars.
First there are the many cars, seem
ingly overwhelmingly SUVs, wearing
magnetic yellow ribbons urging other
drivers to “Support Our Tfoops.” Then
there are the growing number of cars
sporting bumper suckers with anti-war
slogans, such as ”How many soldiers
per gallon?” and “Are you driving the
war?” Our passions for and against the
war in Iraq are clearly spilling out onto
our highways.
Everyone in America supports the
troops. But what does that really
mean? Does displaying a three-dollar
magnetic ribbon made in China really
support the troops? Does countering
with anti-war bumper stickers really
support the troops? Or do both actions
simply make the drivers feel good
about themselves as if they are “doing
their part” to support or resist this war?
Is affixing yellow ribbons to the rears
of cars really a form of protesting
against anti-war protesters rather than
a statement in support of troops? Or is
it a proxy statement for “Support Our
Commander-in-Chief,” no matter
where he might lead us? Similarly, is
affixing anti-war bumper stickers really
a form of retaliating against the yellow
ribbons, an empty gesture more easily
done than insistently writing letters
and making phone calls to newspapers
and politicians?
Of course, we must take great care
not to think in absolutes. There are
certainly yellow ribbon drivers who
question our presence in Iraq, but
who nonetheless feel that it is impor
tant to remind others not to forget the
troops. And there are certainly anti
war drivers who supported our na
tion’s actions in Afghanistan, and
who unflinchingly support our troops
despite their vehement opposition to
the president’s war in Iraq.
Then there are drivers sporting yel
low ribbons on their cars who’ve hon
ored our country by serving in the mili
tary, and who are reminding us that
our young men and women in combat
need to know that they are supported
back home. And there are drivers
sporting anti-war bumper stickers
who’ve also honored us by serving,
and who, having known the horrors of
war, are reminding us of the dangers of
blindly supporting leaders in wartime.
Finally, there are drivers who’ve
done something more than purchase a
magnet. And there are drivers who’ve
written plenty of letters and made
plenty of phone calls. However, I sus
pect all these exceptions taken together
still represent a minority of drivers on
each side of the rear bumper war.
Which returns me to the question:
What does it really mean to “support
our troops”? When The Register-Guard
prominently ran an article last winter
offering information to readers interest
ed in sending care packages to troops
in Iraq with little family, I called the
number provided to the Oregon Na
tional Guard headquarters in Salem.
Despite it having been several days
since the article ran, I was told I was
the first to call in response.
I took down the mailing instruc
tions, offered my support, and was
thanked for calling. My kids and I as
sembled several boxes filled with var
ious items we thought a soldier far
from home might need, and we
mailed them from the post office in
time for Christmas.
I was surprised to have been the
first to find out how I might support
the troops, especially given those
thousands of drivers out there sup
porting the troops. There were proba
bly others who called after me, but I
suspect not many.
Today, there are more than 150.000
American soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan. While doubtless they
appreciate the good will behind the
yellow ribbons, what our soldiers re
ally need is something more than
symbolic support.
To find out how you can support the
troops, contact the Oregon National
Guard, at 1-800-452-7500. Donate your
unused frequent flyer miles by checking
out Operation Hero Miles, at
www.heromiles.org, or by calling your
airline. Participate in the American Red
Cross “,n,easures For TVoops” program
online at www.trianglearc.org/afes/trea
suresfortroops.htm. Finally, contact the
USO about its Operation USO Care Pack
age program, at www.usocares.org.
Todd Huffman is a pediatrician and
writer in Eugene
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic
submissions are preferred tetters are limtted to 250 words, and 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 foe discretion of foe Emerald.
■ Editorial
University's
punishment
of professor
inadequate
In spring term 2005, psychology major
Mary Thomson’s professor Jim Weston made
an inappropriate comment of a sexual nature
to her in class. At the beginning of the next
class, Thomson sat in the back of the room.
Weston created an even more uncomfortable
situation for Thomson by demanding that she
sit in the front row. Thomson dropped the
class later that day and filed a grievance with
the University, stating that Weston had sexual
ly harassed her.
Although the Office of Affirmative Action
and Equal Opportunity does not discuss its
grievance proceedings, Thomson was told
that Weston would be reprimanded; a warn
ing note was placed in his file. However, be
cause his actions were not found to be ongo
ing, no other punishment would be carried
out against the professor.
According to the American Association of
University Professors’ suggested policy on
sexual harassment, academic freedom is im
possible to maintain on campuses if sexual
harassment is present. The Association also
states that in some instances, conducts of a
sexual nature become sexual harassment
when “such speech or conduct...persists de
spite the objection of the person targeted by
the speech or conduct. ”
Thomson’s decision to drop her class on
account of the professor’s improper com
ments surely shows that a violation of aca
demic freedom did occur; likewise, Weston’s
continued and unwanted attention toward
Thomson would surely construe persistent in
appropriate conduct.
To punish Weston with only a note of
warning was a move of bad form on the part
of the University. Giving professors an easy
way out of sexual harassment charges will
only persuade victims to stay silent, because
of the knowledge that perpetrators of ha
rassment will only receive a slap on the
wrist anyway.
The University cannot adequately address
the issue of sexual harassment until every stu
dent and professor knows that the crime of
harassment will be investigated, and dealt
with in a serious manner. ASUO Women’s
Center interim director Erin O’Brien seems to
be correct in her assertion that “the University
has found someone culpable, but not ac
countable” (“Harassment grievance filed
against professor,” ODE July 7). If Weston re
ceived both a reprimand and note of incident
on his personal file, then it is apparent that
some sort of harassment did occur; for the
University to end its investigation and punish
ment is unfair and potentially dangerous to
Thomson as well as future victims of sexual
harassment at this school.
Another aspect of this situation to consid
er is Thomson’s position as a sexual trauma
victim, which would understandably create
a heightened sensitivity over the professors
comments. However, Thomson’s sensitivity
should make Weston more, not less culpa
ble. It is not the job of a student to inform
her teachers about what does or does not
make her uncomfortable; it is the job of a
professor to leave unsuitable sexual remarks
out of the classroom.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Shadra Beesley Ailee Slater
Editor in Chief Commentary Editor
Tim Bobosky
Photo and Online Editor