The courageous Emerald
It’s frustrating to me, really, to see what’s happening in regards to the Yahoo! controversy. Whether or not the Yahoo! ads were offensive, I get this feeling that people are fighting against the ads for two reasons: Because the Emerald ran them and because everybody else is arguing about them.
Just like the protests and outbursts of before, there are just a vocal few who are swaying the opinions of many more:
“Hey! Did you see this horrible ad in the Emerald? Let’s write them a nasty letter in protest!”
“The ad wasn’t that bad, and I think you’re blowing it way out of proportion.”
“But you don’t like the Emerald.”
“Good point, let’s get pissed at ’em!”
I was happy to read Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Hilles’ letter, as they say what I’ve believed all along: You shouldn’t argue just because you can.
I support the Emerald running the ads. I’ve seen the ads, and while they’re not in great taste, they created enough debate that people will remember it. And that was probably Yahoo!’s intention. I don’t blame the Emerald at all for running them and believe that it took more guts to run these ads than it did to not run them.

Jake Ortman

Class of 2000

Bend, Ore.
 

Funds should support Pedi-Cab
The leasing of police-style cruisers by the Department of Public Safety is most certainly a misuse of funds. Not only does this decision violate law and capitalize upon students’ (and community members’) fears of flashing blue lights, but the cruisers take funding away from programs that DO build a campus community.
Instead of spending money to operate vehicles that may be illegal, why not fund programs such as Bicycle Taxi — a program that is not currently running due to “accessibility problems”? Odds are that for far less money than it costs to operate a fleet of illegal cars, we could BRING BACK THE PEDI-CAB!

Ben Andrews

geology
 

HRA not truthful
Why does the Human Rights Alliance see fit to lie in its commentary in the Emerald (ODE, Oct. 4)? Specifically, I am referring to its statement that “there is no democracy on this campus.” This is quite absolutely not true. This campus is rife with democracy at nearly every level. The most obvious case is the annual ASUO elections, which recently supplied the HRA with a “mandate” from students — and, by the abhorrently low turnout, simultaneously demonstrated that most students are here for an education, not for social policy debates.
Another lie by the HRA was the statement that “students, faculty, staff and other campus constituencies have a voice only if President Frohnmayer allows it.” Perhaps the HRA is unaware that the Oregon Legislature provides the University with much of its funding as well as helps influence policy decisions. The Legislature receives its revenue from Oregon taxpayers and its mandate to govern from Oregon voters. Students, faculty and staff have a voice: Vote for the legislative candidates who support your views — the University does not operate inside a vacuum.
Perhaps the HRA really wants to replace the current democratic system with its own local oligarchy. Creating such a quasi-autonomous, non-governmental organization would have two possible outcomes: Either take policy decision power away from the Oregon Legislature, voters and taxpayers, or lose state funding and sit back as our tuition rises to the levels of private colleges.

Dustin Preuitt

graduate student

computer and information science