Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Monday, October 10, 2005
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
PARKER HOWELL
EDITOR IN CHIEF
SHADRA BEESLEY
MANAGING EDITOR
MEGHANN M. CUNIFF
IARED PABEN
NEWS EDITORS
EVASYLWESTER
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
KELLY BROWN
KAIY GAGNON
CHRISTOPHER HAGAN
BRITTN1 MCCLENAHAN
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTERS
JOE BAILEY
EMILY SMITH
PART-TIME NEWS REPORTER
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
SCOTTI. ADAMS
LUKE ANDREWS
JEFFREY DRANSFELDT
SPORTS REPORTERS
AMY IJCHTY
PULSE EDITOR
TREVOR DAVIS
KRISTEN GERHARD
ANDREW MCCOLLUM
PULSE REPORTERS
AILEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
GABE BRADLEY
JESSICA DERLETH
ARMY Firm
RICHARD PRYOR
COLUMNISTS
DM BOBOSKY
PHOTO EDITOR
NICOLE BARKER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
KATE HORTON
ZANERITT
PHOTOGRAPHERS
KATIE GLEASON
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER
JONAH SCHROGIN
SENIOR DESIGNER
JOHN AYRES
JONNYBAGGS
MOLLY BEDFORD
KERI SPANGLER
DESIGNERS
CHRIS TODD
GRAPHIC ARTIST
AARON DUCHATEAU
ILLUSTRATOR
ALEXANDRA BURGUIERES
REBECCA TAYLOR
COPY CHIEFS
JENNY DORNER
BRYN JANSSON
JOSH NORRIS
MATT TIFFANY
COPYEDITORS
STEVEN NEUMAN
ONLINE/SUPPLEMENTS EDITOR
TIMOTHY ROBINSON
WEBMASTER
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
LAUNA DEGIUSTI
RECEPTIONIST
JOE BEES
ALAN FULLERTON
RYAN JOHNSON
ROB WEGNER
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LEIDELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
JOHN KELLY
LINDSEY FERGUSON
WINTER GIBBS
KATE HIRONAKA
DESI MCCORMICK
STEPHEN MILLER
KATHRYN O'SHEA-EVANS
EMILY PH1LBIN
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
BONA LEE
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
LISA CLARK
ANDO
AMANDA KANTOR
KERI SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541)3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
JAMIE ACKERMAN
CAMERON GAlfT
JONAH SCHROGIN
DESIGNERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald Is pu6
lished daily Monday through Fri
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
Keep I AW out of the
the lifl II bedroom
When a condom is used, should HIV
positive individuals still inform sexual
partners of their infected status? Of
course. But should HIV positive indi
viduals be legally required to provide
such information? According to a New
Zealand court, as long as a condom is
used, there is no legal duty of disease
disclosure prior to sexual intercourse.
This ruling is the first of its sort, creat
ing a legal precedent which may be
modeled world-wide.
And that’s a good thing.
The case that led to the New
Zealand ruling involves two people
who met over the Internet. The man
was HIV positive, the woman was
not. Although the pair used a con
dom, Justin Dailey did not reveal his
infected status. When Ms. X (the
woman’s name was suppressed from
the media) discovered, after the fact,
that Dailey had HIV, she went to court
and charged him with two counts of
criminal negligence. If Dailey had
been found guilty, it may have set the
precedent that HIV positive individu
als who don’t reveal their condition
have committed an illegal act.
Dailey, however, was acquitted
under the ruling that in using a con
dom he had taken necessary precau
tions to protect his partner. Instead
of winning her case, Ms. X helped
craft an important legal stepping
stone in terms of sexual responsibili
ty and the role of the government in
the bedroom.
Ms. X is now campaigning for a
law that would require individuals
with HIV to reveal that fact before
engaging in intercourse.
And that is a terrible idea.
To begin with, the decision to trust
another human being is a personal
decision, and that trust should not be
AILEE SLATER
FURTHER FROM PERFECTION
influenced at any level by a meddling
arm of the law. Would Ms. X have
trusted Dailey more, knowing that the
law would offer retribution if it turned
out the man was lying?
Dailey made a bad decision, but
so did Ms. X, and a legal charge of
criminal negligence wouldn’t
change the fact that Ms. X trusted
Dailey enough to have sex with him
in the first place. If Ms. X is comfort
able having intercourse with some
one she met over the Internet, but
not comfortable asking that person
to show her a clean bill of sexual
health, then she ought to work out
that internal discrepancy on her
own. The law has no power to im
bue either Dailey or Ms. X with a
working moral compass.
It is interesting to note that a require
ment of HIV disclosure would basically
produce a law demanding that the
Thith be told. Unfortunately, there is no
way to evaluate whether a sexual part
ner is telling the truth about his or her
disease status sans taking a look at con
crete medical evidence, which is exact
ly what sexual partners should do re
gardless of any law. For Ms. X to accuse
Dailey of “criminal negligence” is to ab
solve herself of personal responsibility.
Especially frightening about a le
gal HIV disclosure requirement is
the false sense of security contained
within such a policy, making silence
an indicator of being free from dis
ease. Many HIV carriers are unaware
of their infected status; if their sexu
al partners rely on an HIV disclosure
law instead of concrete results from
testing, myriad people will be un
knowingly at risk, simply because
everyone involved believes they are
telling and receiving the truth. The
law does not regulate the truth. Evi
dence regulates the truth, and there
is no way around that fact.
The law also cannot take the place
of self-respect: If Ms. X didn’t have
the wherewithal to look after herself
in the first place, a legal precaution
against lying can hardly offer protec
tion. Ms. X wanted the law to act as
a substitute for simply getting an
HIV test with her current sexual
partner, but the law should also not
endorse laziness. As long as it is fair
ly easy to check if your sexual part
ner has HIV, there is no need to
legally prevent (or attempt to pre
vent) that person from lying to you.
Most importantly, we can’t take
refuge in the assumption that The
Law has some overarching power to
keep everyone safe, all of the time.
Unless Ms. X is advocating for a Big
Brother situation, there is no way
the legal system can protect individ
uals from their own poor decisions.
The next time Ms. X is having a pri
vate moment in her bedroom, or the
legal spotlight, she ought to remem
ber that no one can take better care
of her than herself. Shifting the re
sponsibility of personal health and
safety to rest on the shoulders of the
legal sphere will inevitably cause
more damage than good.
aileeslater@ dailyemerald., com
INBOX
Decision to run offensive
cartoon misguided
I am appalled at the cartoon you al
lowed to be published in your issue of
The Oregon Daily Emerald on Oct.
3. To say that the cartoon is immature
or sophomoric is an understatement.
It is distasteful and makes me ques
tion the ethical integrity of the Emer
ald staff, especially the editors who al
lowed it to be printed. Are there so
few interesting issues on this campus
that Aaron DuChateau felt warranted
poking fun at a harmless member of
our University community?
The individual targeted by the car
toon is obviously Frog, the local joke
book vendor who sells his books on
13th Avenue just outside of the book
store. Frog is a valuable member of
this community who cherishes his re
lationship with University students. I
would like to ask DuChateau: As
someone who “hopes to pull the em
phasis of visual commentary back to
issues and matters concerning the
University of Oregon and the students
enrolled here” (quote taken from
DuChateau Emerald bio), what right
do you have to publicly mock an in
nocent man selling books on the
street? The next time DuChateau
wants to use a phrase like “morally
reprehensible” in a cartoon, have him
look up the meaning first.
Devlin Croal
University Senior
Bush's record doesn't
deserve support
He’s trying our patience. He says
those familiar words “strong resolve.”
He says that we should increase sac
rifice overseas to increase security at
home. He says that an inexperienced
personal friend is the “best he could
find” for a powerful judicial position.
He says that the United States has
thwarted 10 attempts of terrorism, as
suicide bombs kill every day overseas.
He is trying to distract us. He redi
rects the attention from New Orleans
by saying that the government does
care, even though they left people
stranded on rooftops, all the while re
fusing foreign aid. He says he favors
small business, yet contracts in New
Orleans were handed out with no bid
ding process. He insists that our eco
nomical and human resources should
be used on war instead of at home.
While a soldier is tried and convict
ed of crimes against prisoners, he
pushes for the veto of a law that
would protect prisoners from similar
atrocities. He is aware of his plummet
ing support. He is scrambling to find
something to grab onto before he
sinks into the stinking, vile pit he has
dug for himself.
He is failing miserably. He thinks
we believe him. He knows we don’t
support him. He is scared. He is
against the ropes. He is waiting for the
knockout punch. Let’s give it to him.
Withdraw your support, discontinue
your apathy and stick it to the man.
Ray Cole
Eugene
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the editor and grest 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. Letters are limited 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 ngit to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald
■ Editorial
It takes more
than mere
cronyism to
be a judge
If nothing else, it can be said that Harriet
Miers has the power to unite our country. Re
publicans and Democrats alike are outspoken
about their dislike for President Bush’s most re
cent Supreme Court nominee.
Political officials on every side of the spec
trum agree that Harriet Miers’ nomination is
completely unfounded, considering her lack of
judicial experience. Although she graduated
from Southern Methodist University School of
Law, Miers has never concentrated on the field
of constitutional law. Miers has worked as an
attorney for years, but has no “paper trail” pre
dicting what role she will play as an associate
justice of the United States, especially when rul
ing on social issues.
Miers is, however, a member of Bush’s Texas
running club.
With no track record of previous judicial de
cisions, it is impossible to know how Miers will
influence future Supreme Court votes. Republi
cans fear that Miers will not be conservative
enough, while Democrats fear just the opposite
— that Miers and Bush have already set up an
agenda to overturn Roe v. Wade.
But all affiliation aside, the key fact remains
that unqualified citizens should not be in
charge of our nation. Didn’t Bush recently learn
that a commissioner of the International Arabi
an Horse Association cannot handle the duties
of FEMA? Miers is another frightening example
of this administration’s tendency to reward loy
alty and friendship rather than knowledge and
experience. Bush and Miers have a kinship
spanning more than 10 years, but the President
cannot expect to justify political appointees
with his own positive personal experiences.
Filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court is not
a job that should be taken lightly, because the
U.S. Constitution is a delicate article: One per
son’s interpretation of one single word in the
document can have severe ramifications for an
entire nation.
At this juncture, it appears questionable
whether Miers will continue on as a nominee.
Should Bush give in to the demands of con
servatives and become responsible once more
for nominating a justice, the president must
take into consideration the attitude of politi
cal leaders nationwide.
Bush should not provide a nominee who will
clearly espouse a narrow political viewpoint. In
fact, we hope he would name a candidate who,
through a proven judicial record, will review
each case based on its individual merits.
Foremost, he should not attempt to fabricate
this sense of judicial objectivity by simply nom
inating someone without a record.
Bush may know Miers well, but the rest of
the country does not, and there are no empiri
cal judicial decisions to give any idea of how
the United States might change under her influ
ence. It shouldn’t be a surprise that almost
everyone involved in the nominating and ap
pointing process is feeling a bit squeamish
about Harriet Miers.
A system of nomination based on personal
camaraderie is unjust and highly inappropriate
in decisions involving the U.S. Supreme Court.
And if Bush can’t convince even his own con
servative base that Miers is a good choice, she
probably isn’t.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Parker Howell
Editor in Chief
Shadra Beesley
Managing Editor
Steven Neuman
Online Editor
Ailee Slater
Commentary Editor