Federal government’s

‘secretive’ methods

apparent with Tenet visit
It’s a good thing I read the papers, or I wouldn’t have known about the secret visit to the University campus by a public official. George Tenet, director of the CIA, spoke at a meeting of the AAU on the University campus, and the University administration complied with his request “not to tell people who didn’t need to know” (Register-Guard, Oct. 29). This is not good news, either for American democracy or for “shared governance” on campus.
Since when does the American people’s right to know matter less than the CIA director’s preferences or judgment of its “need to know”? Since when is a university in the business of protecting a government official from embarrassing questions? And why does the University community — students, faculty, staff — have to find out about things like this not in advance and from our administration, but in the local papers and after the fact?
Just this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed documents from the CIA regarding the agency’s faulty and distorted intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Why was the CIA director allowed to sneak in and out of the EMU without any public knowledge or access, and protected by armed guards? It looks like the secretive and imperious methods of the current federal government are beginning to show up on the local level as well.

Gina Psaki

Professor of Italian
Related Stories:

Age discrimination

unfair at venues
I was turned away from another music venue yesterday because of a characteristic of myself that is beyond my control. When I was told that alcohol was served inside, I thought it to be completely irrelevant. I was only thinking of the blues.
At another club/bar, I noticed a sign stating that no one younger than 21 could enter unless accompanied by a spouse of legal age. I momentarily felt that I was the only rational person in the country. The bar and lawmakers were openly admitting a mistake, a contradiction. Clearly, this exception was made because it seems a bit too preposterous for a person not to be able to go out with their own spouse, but where is the line to be drawn?
Is it justice if a band playing somewhere is one I love, and I cannot enter to hear them while someone who wouldn’t care if they never heard a record in their life can enter freely? What is right and wrong, and who is to decide? I say I am to decide because I am all I know. How can I be expected to be excited when I turn 21? I will have done nothing but aged in a country which has made that age a right — a right to be accepted into public places, to be good enough for everyone and everywhere, to be old enough not to have my liver rot away or make bad decisions.
If something doesn’t make sense you must fight it.

Katia Sussman

sophomore

physics

DPS’ first duty

should be safety
Recently, the Department of Public Safety was granted the right to issue citations for possession of alcohol and less than an ounce of marijuana. It is the job of DPS to ensure our safety on campus. I would be surprised if someone informed me of any situation in which DPS was even in the vicinity of any of the campus rapes, attacks, or caught a masturbator.
They already have the power to enforce and patrol for our safety, but it is an area of jurisdiction I have yet to see make a decent impact on campus. I’m not against controlling drug and alcohol usage on campus. I just don’t think these are powers DPS should have at this time.
With these new powers, what do we have the resident assistants for? The majority of drug and alcohol issues on campus have to do with students in the dorms, which is the whole purpose of RAs living in, and having a close watch over those staying on campus.
I think that before DPS is given this authority, they should work on improving their relationship and trust with the students. We are not working as a unit to improve campus, and instead constantly butt heads over minuscule issues.
In addition, I would like to see DPS work on making good use of and responsibility executing the obligations they are already committed to — like keeping our campus safe.

Nicole Karalekas

freshman

pre-journalism
 

Israel, United States share aggressive policies
I am somewhat surprised by the strong reaction to Steve Baggs’ cartoon published Oct. 13 (“The Middle East’s wonderful future,” ODE). Cries from the Jewish community on campus insisting that the cartoon is not only anti-Semitic, but somehow represents Jews as less than human are ridiculous. While one may question Steve’s taste in dialogue, with “You’re my bitch, ain’t-cha Georgie,” one cannot deny that he is bringing up a very real and very serious issue.
The actions of the United States in Iraq, and the Bush administration’s heightened rhetoric toward Syria follow an eerily similar path to policies considered by Israel’s Likud party as far back as 1996. Some of the principle authors of the aggressive, pre-emptive strike policy considered by Sharon’s Likud party? None other than that shoot-first, ask-questions-later posse of “neoconservative hawks” in and around the Pentagon.
The United States and Israel share an unquestionable link in regards to their aggressive militaristic policies in the Middle East. These policies are criticized not because they are perceived as part of a greater Zionist conspiracy, but because there is a justifiable concern that these actions are counterproductive. If one wants religious conspiracies, then they should look no further than President Bush and what his evangelical Christian faith says about Israel and the Apocalypse.

Peter Utsey

former Emerald illustrator

Eugene