OCR Text |
Show 5 Tuesday November 15, 2011 OPINION www.dailyutahchronicle.corn Don't write off Shurtleff just yet JAKE GARFIELD I StaffWriter n 1991, David Frohnmayer, then attorney general of Oregon, was appointed dean of the University of Oregon Law School. Two years later, he became president of the University of Oregon and led the school to one of the most successful periods in its history. Frohnmayer's unusual transition has suddenly become relevant to the U, as Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff announced he will apply to be the next president of the U. Under Frohnmayer's leadership, the university raised more than $1 billion in donations, and increased its endowment from $52 million to $480 million. Frohnmayer helped the school grow even as the Oregon Legislature aggressively cut funding for higher education. At his retirement in 2009, The Oregonian, Oregon's leading newspaper, called him "one of the most effective college presidents in state history" Prior to his short stint as dean of the law school, Frohnmayer had been a lawyer and local politician with no involvement in academia. Although Shurtleff also lacks experience in academic administration, the story of Frohnmayer shows that he should not be immediately disqualified in the minds of the presidential search committee. Shurtleff lacks many of the "desired qualifications" laid out by the search committee, such as "senior-level administrative experience in an academic setting" and a Ph.D. in a related field. Yet as a three-term attorney general, Shurtleff has many leadership qualities necessary to be a university president. The search committee said the next president needs the "ability to thrive in a public environment with well-developed political and diplomatic skills." An attorney general needs extremely strong political and diplomatic skills to be elected three times, all under intense pubic scrutiny. The new president should also have "experience working with public boards and assisting them in utilizing their full potential." Shurtleff's daily work requires him to collaborate with numerous state agencies to identify diverse cases and work with these groups to move cases forward, or to defend different agencies. MARK situitr ► ecce 114 I 1° 644.4 1. To•Si. INITE9F—ES -c 114 Wu•LaLS 1%/Keldz.0411 WILLUS BRANHAM/The Daily Utah Chronicle The next president should possess "an appreciation for the distinctive history and culture of the state of Utah." As a native of Sandy and an alumnus of the U's law school, Shurtleff possesses a greater appreciation and understanding of the state than career academics from elsewhere. The search committee wrote that the new president needs "long-term commitment," which has been a problem with the past three presidents—Arthur Smith moved to the University of Houston after six years at the U, Bernie Machen left for the University of Florida in 2004 after six years and Michael Young moved Supreme Court should limit use of GPS trackers s students, we do a lot of minor unlawful things. I didn't wait until I was 21 to have my first drink, but the risk of actually getting caught in the act was pretty small. If cops were watching me, there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell I'd actually be caught with a beer in my hand. But what if the authorities could watch you —not just when you were at a party, but all the time? The U.S. Supreme Court is currently debating a case, United States v. Jones, which could affect our daily lives and infringe on our right to privacy. Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C., resident and nightclub owner, was convicted of drug trafficking charges after evidence was procured through the use of a GPS tracking device on his vehicle. The device, which was placed with an expired warrant, collected data every io seconds for 28 days. The information collected through the device on Jones' vehicle was indicative enough to bring charges against him for trafficking narcotics. The argument supporting the police's freedom to use the device claims that the device is no different than traditional 24-hour surveillance methods, such as stake-outs or the use of beeper devices, tracking devices that require authorities to stay in close proximity to receive a return signal. These beeper-style devices are currently legal under a similar case settled by the Supreme Court in 1983. The counter argument claims that there is a vast disparity between the amount of data collected by a GPS device versus beeper technology, and that global positioning collects 24-hour surveillance of what many consider private information. For example, in addition to collecting information that can be used to detect criminal activity, such as a person's visits to known drug hot spots, random and seemingly discreet information is also collected, such as trips to adult video stores or an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. I find it absolutely preposterous that the Supreme Court has to even hear this case. It should have been settled in the lower courts and it should have been determined that the use of such devices in this manner is completely illegal, and a clear infringement on our Fourth Amendment rights. The debate is simple. Do students or citizens want the authorities—without proper A ALEX OUITIOUIT StaffWriter warrants—to be allowed to place tracking devices on our private property, including our cars? The affirmative side argues that without the use of tracking equipment, there wouldn't be enough evidence to obtain a warrant to pursue stopping criminal activity further. But as a student who values his privacy, I feel it would be very Big Brother-like for the authorities to be allowed to place these devices, possibly at random, on whomever they suspect. I am all for catching criminals who are detrimental to society, but reworking our rights to have unlimited access to our private lives seems a little much. "What does the Supreme Court say about your right to move around 24/7 without being tracked? It's one thing to follow you using the beeper devices...the information collected is very limited," said Harvey Miller, a professor of geography and a transportation geographer. "But with the GPS receivers you get a comprehensive mosaic of a person's life. And the debate is if going from limited surveillance to blanket 24/7 surveillance goes beyond the Fourth Amendment." Miller also commented on the potential for these devices to be used by the private sector to access information to use against consumers in industries such as health insurance. "What if you started getting letters from your health insurance company stating that they noticed you were spending a lot of time at the pub and not exercising enough and that they were going to raise your premium or cancel your insurance?" he said. Miller's example is plausible if this case is decided in favor of the legal use of GPS devices. I appreciate my privacy, and hope that the outcome of this case will be in favor of citizen's rights. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu to the University of Washington this past summer after seven years. All three men used the U as a stepping stone to more money and prestige. There's no way to be certain Shurtleff wouldn't do the same, but his Utah connections and lack of a typical presidential profile seem to make him more likely to stay for an extended time period. The list of presidential applicants is currently confidential, and hopefully many highly qualified candidates have applied. Some applicants might be much more qualified than Shurtleff, who might be better prepared for leading the law school than the entire university. But the University of Oregon story is proof that a former state attorney general can possess all of the attributes needed to lead a major research university, regardless of any sarcastic editorials written by the senior staff of this newspaper (Obliged to compete: Shurtleff inspires us to enter race, Nov. to, The Daily Utah Chronicle). The Utah State Board of Trustees, who will make the final decision, should consider Shurtleff's credentials, instead of writing him off for not being a career academic. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu Duty as voters larger than personal beliefs about gay marriage tah law lists marriage between same-sex JAMES individuals as illegal. O'CONNOR What lawmakers don't realize is that politically repudiating gay marriage is like walking up to someone in a restaurant and declaring they are not OK with the meal But religion is not to blame that person is eating. It's none for the banning of same-sex of lawmakers' business. marriage in Utah. The separaIt is OK not to support gay tion of church and state is a marriage, but the benign, perconcept written by Thomas sonal aspects of others' lives Jefferson in a letter and later should not be outlawed by any quoted by the U.S. Supreme political consensus. Therefore, Court, but it isn't a law or gay marriage should be legalpart of the U.S. Constituized whether you stand for it tion. Therefore, the plaintive or not. quips urging Utah to separate Equality in marriage is politics from the LDS Church achieved through the legal will not suffice to defend gay process, said Claudia Geist, marriage. professor of sociology and However, I see nothing member of the gender studies malign about a union made in program. love. I could not sleep at night Utah isn't the only state that knowing my vote limited the bans gay marriage; more than lives of other human beings, 3o others define marriage as especially aspects as crucial a union between a man and to their existence as sexuality, a woman, according to the love and partnership. "Extending the right to National Conference of State Legislatures. marry to same-sex couples But Utah is one of the redwould make their relationdest states in America. Only ships more respected in the 27 percent of Utah voters eyes of others," she said. think that same-sex marriage The contentions against gay should be legal, compared to marriage have become igno66 percent who think it should rant broken records: Anti-gay be illegal, according to Public marriage activists endorse the Policy Polling. "slippery slope" logical fallacy, that legalization of gay marSeventy percent of Utahns are members of The Church riage will lead to polygamy, of Jesus Christ of Latter-day incest, pedophilia and every Saints, so that position is no other evil thing regarding surprise. The LDS Church has relationships. long been a leading opponent If our citizenry is to follow of gay marriage. the venerable path of our U StaffWriter Founding Fathers, it must endorse all of its members' inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The more each individual insists that political matters jive with their personal beliefs, the more selfish we become. America's political system is already divided among the desires of millions of people. The denial of gay marriage only deepens the divide and is one of the most ignoble political disgraces of our era. About 1,049 federal statutes confer legal rights or benefits on married couples, according to the General Accounting Office. Are you OK denying millions of people who never denied you anything 1,049 legal rights? Imagine for a moment that Jews or blacks were denied the right to tax returns, joint policies for their homes or health and auto insurance— the country would be singing a very different tune. Yet this is the injustice gay Americans endure each day. To those who oppose the union of man and man or woman and woman, it is important to separate your personal beliefs from your responsibilities as a voter and a U.S. citizen. If all men are created equal, as our Declaration of Independence boldly notes, we must put the right foot forward and prove Jefferson's laudable sentiment. Denying gays more than 1,000 legal rights is to deny them liberty and the pursuit of happiness. letters@ chronicle.utah.edu |