Adding gender identity or gender orientation to the Eugene anti-discrimination code is an important progressive step in providing fair access to housing and employment for everyone. Discrimination based on gender, including gender identity, is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. It is that simple. The Emerald urges City Council members to pass this ordinance and expand civil rights protections to the transgender community.
There are at least 100 transgender people in Eugene, according to city estimates. The ordinance will mean real changes in their lives. The ordinance would also serve a symbolic purpose, helping to remove the stigma attached to the transgender lifestyle.
Unfounded fears of transgender people using public restrooms continue to dominate the discussion and prove there are plenty of misconceptions, as well as trans-phobia, in the public. The University has included gender identity to its nondiscrimination policy without incident. Eugene will be no different. We are glad the Eugene Human Rights Commission plans on holding community dialogues to begin to address these issues.
The ordinance is a great idea. But the best way to ensure the safety and security of transgender people in our community is for all of us to begin to confront and deal with our own feelings of fear. We must educate ourselves about this issue if we want to create a truly welcoming environment for all people.
The ASUO Constitutional Court’s rejection Tuesday of University sophomore Silas Snider’s request to begin collecting signatures for a recall of a large number of ASUO officials, including the executive and several senators, brings to light a few issues.
First and foremost, the court’s decision
rests on some limp legal excuses. Rather than dealing with the request in a legitimate and
serious manner, they rejected it on the basis of a technicality.
Saying the request “does not conform to
the requirements of bringing a matter before the Court” because Snider was unaware he was required to specifically give instances
of what the court claimed were “alleged incidents that occurred at the Sunriver retreat”
is hardly a courageous action. The court was well aware of the events Snider was referencing, and, incidentally, when the ASUO
admits in a public statement that retreat members broke the law, such actions are no
longer “alleged.”
Second, Snider’s attempt was a well-
intentioned but misguided crusade. While we cannot say in good conscience that we
disagree with the logic behind Snider’s attempt – after all, we have also called for
their resignation in the past – it was also completely unrealistic.
In a government system where an elected term for almost every major position lasts a single year, the energy Snider expended would have had little effect. Even if the court had ruled in his favor and he had gathered the necessary signatures, a recall election would have probably conflicted with
the next regular election cycle and would have been pointless.
Snider and his fellow like-minded students should realize their best opportunity to effect change within the ASUO is to get involved in elections and urge the participation of the student body. Mobilize voters or run for office, because when students elect the right leaders, recall elections are unneeded.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
