EDITORIAL
Fund-raising drive
a win-win situation
The largest private fund-raising effort in the history of
the state will kick off tonight at a gala, biack-tle dinner
— and the University will map all the profits.
That's a nice thing to hear.
The Oregon Campaign, as the fund-raising effort has
been named, represents the best and most ambitious
hope for the University in these financially troubled
times. Rather than relying exclusively upon the gen
erosity of a strapped state government or upon the
resources of a largely cash-poor student body, the Ore
gon Campaign will bring millions of dollars to the Uni
versity without taking money away from anyone who
really needs it.
Life offers very few win-win situations. But this has
the potential to be just that.
The campaign has been going on for two years already.
This was the "silent phase," which included donations
to the business, law and architecture schools, as well as
the College of Arts and Sciences. Although the exact
amount raised so far will not be announced until tonight,
a University nows release indicates that more than 40
percent of the campaign's $150 million goal has already
found its way to University coffers.
But for the remaining four years of the six-year cam
paign, the University is going public with its requests,
asking for donations from alumni, corporations and
foundations, faculty and staff members, and anyone else
who might be interested in investing in the University
and the future of this state.
And that’s exactly what donations to the University
will be: an investment.
Donations to the University will bo used to fund schol
arships. endowed professorships, curriculum improve
ments and research — what campaign leaders are calling
the "people"' aspects of the University.
What the campaign will provide is a needed boost to
the University, which probably could not be achieved in
any other way.
But in order for the campaign to be successful, peo
ple will have to give.
Nobody expects most of the 1994 graduates to fork
over a big gift: most of them are probably still paying
off student loans. But there are a lot of former Ducks who
can afford to cough up a little dough for the school that
gave them their degrees — especially if those degrees
helped them get the jobs they now have.
Business and professional leaders who didn’t go to the
University should also give serious thought to the possi
bility of helping the cause. If the University is of a high
quality, its graduates will be too. And those graduates
will have to work somewhere.
Students today should appreciate the donors who
havo given to the University already. Those donor con
tributions have halpod make this institution better than
it otherwise could've been.
And one day. maybe they can return the favor.
Oregon Daily
Emerald
t h* i>rvy*v' daily l mm aid '* pubfcthed daily Monday Ihrowgh f 'Kilty dunng the *ctx>c*
y®»' and Tuesday and Tftur*day during the »ummet by the Oregon Da.ty Emerald
PiMahatg Co . Inc . at I’'* UravarMy o> Or agon. f ugen*. Oregon
1h« I'matO opt*sin* independently cJ the Urwatiriy wm office* W Soda 300 ot the
Erb Memorial Union and > a member o' fhv Aaaooaiad Pn»t
Tha f meraAf n private property The unlawful removal ot uaa ol papers a pro*acmab*
by taw
Edttof-mOial Ka>y Soto
Mwtagma EdNot 0«v«d Tbotn Naan Edltot FUtoarxa Mamtt
Editorial Editor Joa Harwood Sporta Editor Ova Matt
Jad Pasiay Photo Editor Mchaai Srvnd*
AlamaBaom Supplements Ednor TnaU Noal
Ed Kloplanpem Night Editor Key Sdo
Associate Editor a Fnedartch von Carp. SJuOani Government-Acsvtsas Mar cal ana Edwards
Commwrafjr Tittany Smrffi, FAgher L'ducaftorv Admmr*tr*hon
Nawa Staff: Lori Baftinaato, Wilaon Chan. Amy Colombo. Tatha Etch*n*#h*r Aba
EJbmad*. Piano f onlana. Gayta Forman. ChnMophar For. Malt Gwton Gary Grass Sw*i
Handaraon Kns Harry, Traaor Ksarney. Adam Kmchsr. UaV Me Tyre Ban Mtabna. Arm
Moaar Kom*ld. Snarry Ramey Hobo* Reeve*. Ua Saicaxta. PaU Van Seal*. Km Wau
Ganal Waal Bnan Worn**
_ Editor
EdHoriai
Graphic* EdHor
Fraalanca Editor
tn-Oapth Editor
Judy H*dt
Advarttalng Dirac tor Mar* W attar " Production Managar: Mena* Hoaa
Advertising: Marco Citing. Tony For. tun Harsher. N<o* Harjmatt Jaramy Maaon
Michael Mtvacta. Sarah Miches. Tom Mttatttaadl. Kattay Awe*
Claaarftad Becky Mar chant. Managar Son Tta Tec*
Dlatrtbotlon: John Long. Faranc RMocji, Regina Zacpna
Buainaaa; Kathy Carbon* Scparvraor Judy ConnoSy
Production Dane* McCobb. ProdtcOon Coorotnaior Shawn* Aba*. Grag Daamond Tara
GauAnay, Brad Joa*. Janndar Roland Matt Thangwri Oayton Yaa
Naararoom._..MS-S611 Dtaplay Advarttalng_MS-3711
Buainaaa Ofnca ..— MS-SS12 Classified Advartlaing_
ft
Bill CL/vroN was
FORCED 7t> R£SPOHb
THE CRISIS »M »AAS
■ I ...TO REhMVQ MDOAK Ht/yjf/A/... 1
W^F/* : H
I...A8x*rrm&
| w/rn FOR.U
ffFEcni
[... ABOUT TVQEArtN/fiJO ms HEKiHBo*s
FORSJES THAT 6BOQC* Qosh
£fF£C.T\V£LY D£SrQ.C*1ED
WflORS |
■ OPINION
Opinions, survey results disagree
Brian Wom ack
II seams wv’ro once again using
selective reasoning A survey
has come out that doesn't
quite match up with some peo
ple's politics So the first thing
we do is get loose with the facts
and hard on the rhetoric.
This survey on sex in America
says we re not as gay as some
thought we were.
Hack in the 1940s, Alfred C.
Kinsey conducted a survey of
similar scope and size He came
up with the figure of 10 percent
of the population being homo
sexual, which has worked very
nicely into the politics of the left
over the last several years and has
been repeatedly used, despite
some of its questionable data col
lection techniques.
However, the new finding says
a mere 2.H percent of men and 1.5
percent of women are homosex
ual or bisexual.
Since these numbers don't
match up with some people's
politics, there must be something
wrong with them.
Enter Paul Van Sickle.
Yesterday in the Emerald, Paul
Van Sickle concluded there must
be something wrong with these
numbers since they don't match
up with Kinsey's and his opin
ions.
The problem is that he forgot
to check the numbers in the Kin
sey report
As one author of the new sur
vey said. Kinsey had problems
with using scientifically valid
sampling techniques.
What were those problems?
Well, for one, 4.7 percent of thu
homosexuality prevalence rates
were taken from male prostitutes
Yes. male prostitutes.
Second, zo-Z5 percent of the
sampling included those from the
prison population. You don’t
have to be Stephen Hawking to
figure out that this would defi
nitely skew the data.
With "techniques" like this, it's
no wonder the numbers were so
high The columnist then went
on to say that same-gender desire
attraction and apf>eal rate at eight
percent, which is closer to Kin
sey's numbers. .So there might be
more homosexuals than the sur
vey says, since there’s some
attraction
But just because someone
might have an attraction to some
thing doesn't mean he or she pur
sues it.
With this logic, someone might
be considered a vegetarian if
they're thinking about eating just
non-meat products.
Or maybe someone's attract
ed to the postal carrier. That
doesn’t necessarily mean she’s
going to throw away her wedding
ring
Don’t get mixed up in the stats
like “those who have had same
gender sex since the age of 18" is
five and four percent for men and
women, respectively. One-night
stands do not account for a
lifestyle
No. it simply l>oils down to the
fact that if people identify them
selves as homosexual or bisexu
al, that's what they are.
Other points Van Sickle
brings up are interesting He
says,"The overwhelming tide of
discriminatory feelings current
ly circulating against homosex
uals would be scary, and might
influence survey subjects'
responses.”
Uh. Paul, did you go to school
on Tuesday? National Coming
Out Day? Day to make hetero
sexuals feel guilty for not being
homosexual?
I hen there were all those
parades last summer.
All of these events were
brought to tiear on the public by
extensive press coverage.
I he entertainment media
holds up "the cause” from print
to film, as in Philadelphia. I
could go on.
Not exactly an overwhelming
tide of discrimination.
Now, before you start scream
ing, “What about the Oregon Cit
izens Alliance!” at this column
and make others in the room
stare, let me say that although
the OCA definitely has support
ers, in most of the visible parts
of our society, the OCA is rele
gated to the approximate status
of Genghis Khan, only without
the soft language.
Saying you are gay or lesbian
today is saying you're political
ly correct, and no matter what
people say, that's usually fash
ionable.
Admitting being gay in the
1940s was about as easy as
threading a needle with a bon
constrictor.
Really, Paul, what is the fas< i
nation with making sure as
many people as possible are
gay?
It probably lies in those poli
tics of yours. You lefty.
As you say, "Overall, I find it
disconcerting that this kind of
information is going to Ihi used
to allocate resources for public
services and to decide social
policy. People shouldn't be
jumped into groups according to
their sexual activity, especially
if it would affect their access to
services."
So if the survey would have
said. “49 percent of us are
homosexual," it would have
been okay?
Then, because there were
more than we expected, we
should decide social policy
based on sexual activity?
If someone is gay or lesbian,
they'll get the same protection as
everyone else.
Perhaps you're right, Paul
These surveys shouldn't be tak
en so seriously.
Don't decide to believe the
surveys that line up with your
opinions.
Brian IVomack is a columnist for
the Emerald.