Comm eirtary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Monday, November 14, 2005
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
PARKER HOWELL
EDITOR IN CHIEF
SHADRA BEESLEY
MANAGING EDITOR
MEGHANN M. CUNIFF
1ARED PABEN
NEWS EDITORS
EVA SYLWESTER
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
KELLY BROWN
KAIY GAGNON
CHRISTOPHER HAGAN
BRITTNIMCCLENAHAN
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTERS
JOE BAILEY
EMILY SMITH
PART-TIME NEWS REPORTERS
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
SCOTT J. ADAMS
LUKE ANDREWS
JEFFREY DRANSFELDT
SPORTS REPORTERS
AMY LICHIY
PULSE EDITOR
TREVOR DAVIS
KRISTEN GERHARD
ANDREW MCCOLLUM
PULSE REPORTERS
AILEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
GABEBRADLEY
JESSICA DERLETH
ARMY FETH
COLUMNISTS
TIM BO BOSKY
PHOTO EDITOR
NICOLE BARKER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
KATE HORTON
ZANE RITE
PHOTOGRAPHERS
JONAH SCHROGIN
DESIGN EDITOR
JOHN AYRES
MOLLY BEDFORD
OSSRE BLADINE
KER! SPANGLER
DESIGNERS
CHRIS TODD
GRAPHIC ARTIST
AARON DUCHATEAU
ILLUSTRATOR
DAWN HELZER
REBECCA TAYLOR
COPY CHIEFS
JENNY DORNER
BRYN JANSSON
JOSH NORRIS
JENNA ROHRBACHER
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
JILL ATKINSON
LUKEBELLOITI
RYAN JOHNSON
SEBASTIAN STORLORZ
NICKVICINO
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541) 346-3712
MEUSSAGUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LE1DELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
|OHN KELLY
UNDSEY FERGUSON
WINTER GIBBS
KATE HIRONAKA
DESI MCCORMICK
STEPHEN MILLER
KATHRYN O'SHEA-EVANS
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
BONA LEE
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541) 3464343
YRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
USA CLARK
ANDO
AMANDA KANTOR
KERI SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
IAMIE ACKERMAN
CAITUN MCCURDY
ERIN MCKENZIE
JONAH SCHROGIN
TERRY STRONG
DESIGNERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
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
It sure feels
good to be at the
top of the Pac-10...
Yea it does... but Nike just gave us
a new toy that should really help
us get the edge!
The machine was
originally used on
incredibly poor families
overseas...but Nike
researchers found that
if they reverse the
machines flow....
...The other team won't even know
what hit 'em!
Hello Fiesta Bowl!
Aaron DuChateau | illustrator
■ In my opinion
Banning head scarves is religious discrimination
Dress codes at educational institutions
aren’t just about appropriate skirt
lengths anymore. A medical student at
Istanbul University wasn’t allowed to
take a final exam in 1998 because of her
Islamic head covering. Leyla Sahin, a
Tlirkish woman from a Muslim family,
considers her head scarf a religious duty
and fought the university’s dress code af
ter being denied access to myriad classes
and examinations.
When a Tlirkish court refused to re
peal the head scarf ban, Sahin appealed
the decision to the European Court of
Justice. Thursday, that court upheld
Turkey’s prohibition of head scarves on
university campuses. As an oiganization
that “deals with disputes and upholds
the treaties of the European Union,” the
Court of Justice has set an inexplicably
terrible precedent for issues of religious
freedom and individual expression.
The court’s decision to side with the
Tlirkish dress code is nothing short of
approving religious discrimination.
Because the Tlirkish constitution is
based on strictly secularist principles,
the state is not supposed to show a pref
erence for any particular religion. How
ever, if an Islamic form of religious ex
pression is banned, non-Islamic religions
are certainly receiving preferential treat
ment by the Tlirkish government. Are
necklaces with crucifixes explicitly
banned from university campuses? How
about Jewish stars? Are atheists required
to keep their disbelief in a higher power
to themselves?
It is unfair that the head scarf should
be banned simply because it is a very
obvious, visual display of religious affili
ation. Unless university officials are pre
pared to prevent anyone with a religious
affiliation from attending their campus,
students should be allowed to indulge in
personal, nonobtrusive, nonharmful
expressions of their religion.
When crafting their decision to retain
the ban on head scarves, the European
AILEE SLATER
FURTHER FROM PERFECTION
Court of Justice claims to have paid spe
cial heed to the issue of women’s rights.
Indeed, head scarves are often made out
to symbolize the oppression of Islamic
women. However, the women who
choose to wear the scarves often have a
different interpretation of their head
gear. Modem feminists from an Islamic
background consistently theorize that
demonizing women’s head coverings
shows a lack of knowledge or apprecia
tion for non-Western religious back
grounds. These feminists always make
the point that a woman who wears a
head scarf or a burka should not be des
ignated oppressed, as long as the choice
to cover or not to cover belongs to her.
In the case of Leyla Sahin, it is the Eu
ropean court rather than a religious head
covering that is truly oppressing women.
The court is deluded in their thinking
that a ban on head scarves is a step for
ward for women’s rights. The only effect
most women will feel from the scarf ban
is frustration, when they are forced to
choose between their religion and their
education. Already, hundreds of Turkish
women have come out in protest to the
head scarf ban.
Also objecting to the ban is Human
Rights Watch, an organization that ex
poses and comments on international
human rights issues ranging from homo
phobic legislation to the military recruit
ment of children. Human Rights Watch
has taken a firm stand against the deci
sion of the European court, making the
valid point that secularism was founded
from a point of view wherein all beliefs
and religions, including atheism, are
treated with respect.
Obviously, the judges on the Euro
pean Court of Justice believed that their
decision was just and respectful to all.
The court even claimed that its ruling
was in accordance with the European
Convention on Human Rights. Howev
er, looking at the convention document,
it is difficult to understand how the court
could possibly consider itself in compli
ance with human rights regulations.
According to the convention, “every
one has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion ... ei
ther alone or in community with oth
ers and in public.” The convention
goes on to say that the only time a per
son is not allowed to manifest their re
ligious beliefs is when such manifesta
tions are a threat to public safety,
public order or are illegal. Unless head
scarves can be shown to damage the
general safety and order of society, the
Convention on Human Rights would
seem to dictate that scarves not be
banned from university campuses.
The recent head scarf ruling follows in
the footsteps of a 2004 French bill that
banned girls from wearing head scarves
in all state schools. And there is no need
to explain how Muslim communities in
France feel about their country’s reli
gious atmosphere; flaming cars and sub
urban riots pretty much sum it up.
It is uncommon to say in our current
global atmosphere, but Europe should
take a page from U.S. policy decisions.
When a Muslim girl in Oklahoma was
sent home for wearing a hijab, the U.S.
justice department ruled that a dress
code that banned the head scarf should
be considered religious discrimination.
The United States got it right: Secular
ism is pointless if people are still
oppressed for their religious expressions.
aslater@dailyemerald. com
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. 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 right to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald
■ Editorial
Skateboard
ban on
13 th is
ludicrous
This year, the Eugene Police Depart
ment will enforce a city ordinance that
bans skateboarding on East 13th Avenue
from Kincaid Street to Pearl Street. In re
sponse to business owners complaining
about an upsurge in skateboarders, riders
will be ticketed $50 and potentially have
their skateboards confiscated.
Pedestrian safety is an important concern,
and often one sees skateboarders weaving
between pedestrians on streets and side
walks. Yet it seems outlandish that the police
would spend time and energy hanging
around East 13th Avenue and waiting to
catch skateboarders. This action is just one of
a string of law enforcement policies that at
tempt to create public safety, but only seem
to hinder students of the University campus.
Last year, the Department of Public Safety de
cided to start citing campus bicyclists a $25
fine for riding on sidewalks or for failing to
yield to pedestrians. Skateboarders became
subject to the fines as well.
As usual, bicyclists and skateboarders get
the short end of the transportation stick.
These policies give both cars and pedestrians
the right of way over bikes and skateboard
ers. Bikers and boarders have limited access
to the sidewalk, and limited access to the
street; on portions of East 13th Avenue, skate
boarders have access to neither. Bike lanes
around campus are often one way, forcing
people traveling in the opposite direction to
either ride next to automobiles or on the side
walk. Bicyclists and skaters are usually soak
ing wet, cold and exhausted by the time they
reach campus. Fining these riders is unfair to
the people who have chosen alternative
modes of transportation.
Assigning Eugene Police Department and
Department of Public Safety officers to catch
skateboarders and bicyclists who skirt mles
of the road is an ineffective use of University
and city resources. If the DPS wishes to actu
ally increase the safety of the public on cam
pus, they ought to consider creating more
clearly marked bike lanes and crosswalks at
the East 13th Avenue and University intersec
tion, as well as attempting to inform pedes
trians how to stay out of the way of bike and
skateboard traffic.
The current traffic solution — forcing a few
boarders or bikers a day to pay fines — is not
making the University area any safer. As any
one walking across campus can see, bicyclists
and skaters still appear on sidewalks and
pedestrians still lollygag across East 13th Av
enue, especially when police aren’t there.
And everyone still needs to look both ways
before crossing an intersection.
The issue of bicycle, skateboard and
pedestrian traffic should be one of respect
rather than citations and fines. As long as
bicyclists and skateboarders use caution
and verbal alerts, and pedestrians are alert
to their surroundings, we can all make our
way around the campus area with ease.
Recent citation policies by the Department
of Public Safety and the Eugene Police de
partment are unnecessary additions to
this transportation equation.
CORRECTION
Thursday's “Jay & Silent Bob strike OUT... again”
stated there is no coarse language on the DVD. In
fact, there is coarse language on the DVD's com
mentary track.
The Emerald regrets the error.