| Commentary |
■ Guest commentary # #
. Treatment ofDDS and police officers snare similarities
While reading the Eugene Weekly
Viewpoint in the June 30 issue, titled
“Designated Driver,” I couldn’t help
but see the parallels between TVavis
Allan Edwards’ argument regarding
the treatment of the Designated Dri
ver Shuttle following two employees
being caught drinking on the job, and
the Eugene Police Department’s treat
ment by Eugene residents and the
city itself (certain elected officials).
Edwards describes his job and
how he has been assaulted. He also
notes having to clean up “unpleasant
amounts of bodily fluids.” Think of
the police officers who work on the
streets. Every day they are forced to
deal with drunks, people who have
urinated/defecated themselves or
puked on themselves, all so the citi
zens’ lives can be free of this filth.
Not even to mention the numbers of
people with AIDS, Hepatitis of all
sorts and infectious skin diseases.
Like Edwards and DDS, think of how
many people the police have prevent
ed from driving any farther while un
der the influence. Yet, they become
the bad guys when they do their job.
Eugene Police patrol officers have
always been shunned by the unap
preciative vocal minority. Also being
“accused of not doing our jobs prop
erly,” the officers every day are faced
with officials and citizens who think
they know what the job of police
officer is about. It is not coincidental
that officers go through six to eight
months of training before working
the streets. That, in itself, should
shoulder a lot of weight when some
one with no experience tries to tell of
ficers how to do their job.
Edwards says he does “not see why
this one event which only involved
two employees should have such an
impact on DDS as a whole. ” Does this
ring any bells? Need I mention what
two former officers I am referring to?
Now, the bandwagon has been loaded
full of uninformed accusers, labeling
all other police officers in Eugene as
racist sexual predators.
EPD also is labeled as an
“unorganized group of people who
have no passion for (their) jobs.”
Knowing nothing of who the officers
are as people out of uniform, the la
bel is generously applied to all the
hard workers wearing the unappreci
ated blue of EPD. Like Edwards
claims, these assumptions are also
based on “the few conflicts we have
encountered.” Here in Eugene, I
think it is very fair to say the anti-po
lice citizens/officials overlook all the
positive contributions EPD makes to
this ungrateful city.
I share Edwards’ feelings when
he said, “We have hit our share of
snags and complications, but I
don’t see why these small and
infrequent occurrences should be
used to make generalized assump
tions” about the service Eugene’s
street officers provide.
Now that Edwards presented his ar
gument in favor of his job, and I have
paralleled those with my argument in
favor of mine at EPD, I feel a sense of
relief that at least one person in Eugene
feels what it is like to be a police offi
cer every day in this city. I also assume
Edwards will never join the bandwag
on of EPD critics, and he will appreci
ate officers doing their jobs, just I as I
appreciate the one he does.
Don Hollis works for the
Eugene Police Department
Country's commitment to free press compromised
Reporter Judith Miller of the New
York Times was sent to jail. Along with
Matthew Cooper of Time magazine,
she has been held in contempt for re
fusing to testify about her confidential
sources to a federal grand jury.
Because Time has now complied
with the grand jury’s subpoena by sup
plying Cooper’s notes, and because
Cooper has agreed to testify, he is like
ly off the hook.
To many of us, however, our news
media’s high-profile legal confrontation
with the government is a depressing
story — especially when we celebrated
our Independence Day just weeks ago.
More than anything, it compels us to
wonder whether our commitment to a
robust and uninhibited press is still the
defining characteristic of our country.
Miller would never have imagined
facing jail time in July 2004, when
columnist Robert Novak “outed” a CIA
operative, Valerie Plame.
But all the courts, including the
Supreme Court, have rejected Miller’s
claims that reporters have a right to
protect confidential sources.
What’s the scorecard for the news me
dia’s most serious legal battles with the
government since the Supreme Court
held in Branzburg v. Hayes in 1972 that
the First Amendment does not protect re
porters from grand jury subpoenas?
A 4-0 victory for the government.
The Supreme Court refused to hear
Miller’s appeal from the District of Co
lumbia Circuit Court, which upheld a
federal district court’s contempt find
ings against her.
Most dismaying, however, is the ju
dicial obduracy in rebuffing the re
porter’s argument that courts should
examine the post-Branzburg evolution
of the journalistic privilege.
The Miller case is also revealing in
that the judges are unnervingly cava
lier and dismissive in rejecting the re
porters’ privilege as a matter of policy
or principle. Few judges were willing
to grant the press due credit as an in
stitutional check on the government.
In April, when the full D.C. Circuit
Court declined to reconsider a three
judge panel’s unanimous ruling
against Miller, there was no dissent.
Likewise, the Supreme Court’s deci
sion against Miller was tellingly silent in
sidestepping an overdue opportunity to
clarify several significant constitutional
and common-law issues raised in the
case. Attorney generals from 34 states
and the District of Columbia had asked
the court for a more definitive position
on the law. Yet none of the justices both
ered to write his or her own opinion,
whether concurring or dissenting, for
the court’s refusal to hear the case.
The Supreme Court was not swayed
at all by a growing split among federal
courts and by the divergence of federal
law from the laws of 49 states, which
recognize the privilege.
The news media’s loss will likely ex
acerbate the legal quandary facing
news reporters. It emboldens federal
prosecutors and litigators in demand
ing the identity of confidential sources.
But we don’t have to lament the
Miller case as just a futile exercise by
the news media. If the post-Branzburg
history serves as a guide, the case will
act as a catalyst for the reporters’ right
to safeguard their sources’ anonymity.
Indeed, it has already galvanized
several senators and congressmen into
action on a possible federal shield law.
Bills on the reporters’ privilege have
been introduced to Congress. The Re
porters Committee for Freedom of the
Press and other media advocates push
for a federal shield law. Besides, a
number of states are considering pass
ing or amending shield laws.
On the other hand, the federal pros
ecutor’s strong-armed pursuit of
Miller’s confidential source or sources,
even though she did not write a story
using the sources, is reverberating far
beyond our borders.
Recendy, the International Press In
stitute, the global network of news pro
fessionals based in Vienna, Austria,
has noted “an alarming new pattern of
assault” on press freedom in our coun
try by judges and prosecutors.
We cannot afford this kind of fallout
from the press-government conflict
while trying to restore our tarnished
reputation and influence in the post
Sept. 11 world.
Our courts’ increasingly callous out
look on the reporters’ privilege sends
an unintended, misguided message to
many countries that our reporters are
coerced into serving as the govern
ment’s investigatory arms.
Hence, we should be rightly con
cerned about the negative global im
age of our country that might emanate
from the Miller case.
Few of us will bear watching
Miller being hauled into jail as a
heavy price for doing her work as a
committed journalist.
Kyu Ho Youm holds the Jonathan Mar
shall First Amendment Chair. This
guest commentary is a reprint that ap
peered in the Register-Guard on July 7.
INBOX
Public deserves political
discussion, not radical rants
In response to Gabe Bradley’s recent
commentary (“Why I’m becoming a
Republican,” ODE, July 7), this is why
I am staying a moderate Democrat
who can’t help but respect moderate
Republicans: The writing is in the
books, not on the wall.
There are some issues that Republi
cans and I agree on, like fiscal disci
pline. I’m a moderate Democrat. There
Stickers &
ickers and
SHOE-A-HOLIC
Buy 1, Get 2
FREE sale!
' On selected
shoes at our
outlet store
Store fixtures for sale
957 Willamette St
687-0898
LAZAR’S BAZAR
57 W. Broadway • 687-0139
Downtown
www.lazars.com
are many issues that both the radical
left and the radical right and I do not
agree on. Beyond the handful of issue
that are used to divide people like me
from my moderate Republican neigh
bors, I find myself in better company
on a lot of issues with the pleasantly re
served individual occupying the middle
ground of our American political spec
trum. Party affiliation aside, we are all
Americans who deserve good public
policy tempered by cool heads. I have
learned in my limited political experi
ence to be suspect of people who are
sure they have the one correct answer
for everyone, and I have learned to be
wary of people thirsty for power. The
radical right wing of the Republican
Party falls into these categories.
While I respect the columnist’s
opinion and right to support a political
party, I do not respect the “foaming at
the mouth” approach he uses to sub
tly urge people to follow his lead and
buy into the Republican ideology.
Bomb-dropping statements appear,
such as “But now the Democrats are
yacking their heads off about what
Bush should do because that's all they
can do, talk,” or “Well there's only
Eurailpass issued On-The
New York $198 Mexico City $220
Los Angeles $156 Lima $619
London $448 Tokyo $567
Paris $508 Bangkok $600
Frankfurt $581 Sydney $714
Fares are roundtrip from Portland. Restrictions apply.
Taxes not included. Fares subject to change.
IHRAVELCUIS
See the world your way
1430 S.W. Park Ave.
[On the Park Blocks by PSU]
503-274-2323
800-592-CUTS (2887)
portland@travelcuts.com
ASK US ABOUT OUR EXCLUSIVE FLEXIBLE FARES
www.travelcuts.com/ usa
Student
Groups!
Advertise in the Emerald call 346-4343
or place your ad online at
www.dailyemerald.com
room for one John McCain,” or
“When Democrats win elections, they
get to pick judges. Until then, they
might as well just shut up. ”
I wouldn’t mislead people into sup
porting all that falls on the left side of
the political spectrum, but generally it
fits my tastes and you may agree.
Check it out for yourself. My support
of my party does not mean I approve
of everything that is associated with
my party, or being liberal, or left lean
ing. The world and politics are much
too complex for that. Don’t buy the
rants of party hacks, think for yourself
and let the radicals, like this columnist,
tire themselves out before trying to
have a civil political discussion with
them. We would all be better off if
more of us chilled out. I heave read
statements on the right such as “De
mocrats are the enemy,” “politics is
war.” My father, my brother and many
of my friends are Republicans and they
are not my enemies. Political radicals
are not even my enemies, they are my
opponents. And that is a big difference.
Tim Young
Masters in Public Administration
Bachelor’s in Political Science
022619
755 MONROE ST.,EUGENE, OR 97402 • 541.683.5676
A patisserie serving fine desserts, gourmet pastries,
organic coffee and tea, vegan option!
GELATO "
BY THE SLICE!
MON-FRI: 7 AM -11 PM
SAT-SUN: 8 AM -11 PM