Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 18, 1996)
R n l Should Oregon have a sales tax to offset the effects of Measure 47? Let us know. editorials, letters, commentary and perspective BY MAIL P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 BY PHONE: (541)346-5511 BY E-MAIL: ode@oregon. uoregon. edu IN PERSON: Suite 300, EMU New solutions must solve historic problem Instead of marking the end of social inequality programs, the decline of affirmative action may signal the beginning During the last election, Oregonians got the chance to vote on 23 measures and propositions that will have a direct im pact on their lives. However, one of the most important propositions in the election is one that Oregonians didn’t get to vote on. In fact, it OPINION wasn t even pro posed in this state; it was pro posed in California. California’s anti-dis crimination measure ended a 20-year trend of af firmative action in the Golden State. And while it has no direct impact on Oregonians, it could represent a nationwide move ment away from affirmative action. The big question on everyone’s mind: Is this a good or bad thing? The debate on affirmative action is a sticky one. On one hand, it is hard to argue that affir mative action, as it is now used, is a perfect program. It breeds resentment from minorities and whites alike. On one end of the spectrum, many so-called “angry white males” believe they will not have jobs because minorities and women will be given special treatment. Whether this really happens under affirmative action or not isn’t important. What is impor tant is that the social tension in relationships between whites and minorities and women is heightened. This leaves many white males feeling cheated by the system and even more re sentful toward the minorities and women whom the program is supposed to help. White men aren’t the only ones upset with the current system. Many qualified minorities and women feel they aren’t given the respect they de serve because most people think these groups wouldn’t be where they are without affirmative ac tion. Of course this isn’t always true, and many are left wondering if they really deserve the position they attained or if they got it because of their race or sex. It was exactly these feelings of frustration that led an African-American man to write Califor nia’s current anti-discrimination measure. i While the problems of affirmative action are worth noting, it is also important to see why affir mative action programs might be necessary. Hun dreds of years of oppression have certainly left CHRIS HUTCHINSON/EmeraW women and minorities far behind the rest of the country. The House Committee on Ways and Means reports that a little more than 50 percent of female-headed households live below the poverty line. African-Americans and Hispanics are doing a little better at 32 and 28 percent, respectively. These figures compare to only 11 percent of whites living in poverty. When you look at these figures, it becomes obvi ous that something needs to be fixed. If minorities and women aren’t given some boost, whether through affirmative action or other programs, there is little reason to suspect this gap will begin to close. By this reasoning, saying we simply won’t discriminate anymore — like California’s anti-dis crimination measure is attempting to do — won’t fix the problem. The question is, what will? The answer many people provide is affirmative action. However, as we have already seen, af firmative action is filled with flaws. Just be cause some program is needed to help make up for past inequalities doesn’t mean affirma tive action is the only solu tion. In fact, instead of con centrating on saving affirmative action, we should be looking for more effective programs that will accomplish the goals of af firmative action with less negative side effects. One possible solution, at \ least tor college admittance policies, \ would be economic action. An eco / nomic action policy would give prefer / ential treatment to people from economi f cally poorer backgrounds. Such a policy would be more effective in accomplishing the goals set out for affirmative action on college campuses than the current system. First of all, a policy of affirmative action would target only minorities who are disadvan taged, allowing those minorities who don’t need affirmative action to succeed on their own. Secondly, because women and minorities are disproportionately poor, economic action would indirectly promote student diversity in college campuses, an original goal of affirma tive action. Lastly, because poorer students i usually come from poorer schools with less resources, it makes sense to give them prefer ential treatment because they have not en joyed the same advantages of wealthier stu dents. The passing of California’s anti-discrimination measure, for better or worse, marks a significant change in social policy in the United States. While there are very good reasons for Americans to reject affirmative action, we should seek better solutions instead of abandoning social inequality programs all together. Economic action is just one of several possible solutions that could achieve the goals of affirmative action more effectively. Instead of fighting to save affirmative action, we should be fighting to replace it with better programs. Brian Diamond, a sophomore majoring in journalism, is a columnist for the Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the newspaper staff. He can be reached by e-mail at brin@gladstone.uoregon.edu. p 0. BOX 3159. EUGENE. OREGON 97403 The Oregon Daily Emerald is published daily Monday through Fri day during the school year and Tuesday and Thursday during the sum mer by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co Inc., at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon A member of the Associated Press, the Emerald operates independently of the University with offices at Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. The unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law Editor-In-Chief: Steven Asbury Managing Editor: Jennifer Carter Night Editor: Steven Asbury Community: Jennifer Schmitt, editor Jean Bond, Christian Hill Entertainment: Nicole Kreuger, editor Jesse Stephenson Higher Education: Tamyra Howser, in-depth. Laura Cadiz, Benjamin Kwasney Opinion: Ashley Bach, editor. Chris Hutchinson, illustrator Brian Diamond, Larry Haftl, Sonja Sherwood Politics: Shana Cohn, editor Doug Irving Student Activities: Kristin Bailey, editor Angie Suchy, Tom Potter Sports: Mark McTyre. editor Andrea DeYoung, assistant editor Chris Hansen, Ryan Frank, Ryan Halvorsen Copy Desk: Thom Schoenborn, copy chief Trevor Kearney, Sarah Kickler, Mike Schmierbach, Kendra Smith Presentation: Dennis Bolt, editor. Matt Garton Photography: Mathew Stiffler, editor. Andrew Brackensick, Joe Bunik, Amanda Erickson. Shannon Kilduff, Chad Patteson Freelance: Lara Pittman, editor On-Line: Nicholas Stiffler General Manager: Judy Riedl Advertising Becky Merchant, director Anne Amador. Lee Yen Beh, Marco Ching, Yujin Chi, Matt Johnson, Anne Miller, Trina Shanaman, Rose Soil, Matt Solomon, Greg Walsh Classified: Tara Sloan, manager Natasha Lumpkin, Debbie Levy, Heather Moye Production: Michele Ross, manager. Ingrid White, coordinator Shawna Abele, Laura Daniel, Susan Head, Trevor Kearney, Tara Knight. Melissa Lebahn, Molly McCanta, Allison Stormo, Mike Young Business: Kathy Carbone, supervisor Judy Connolly Distribution: John Long, John Pauli, Ferenc Rakoczi .(541)346-5511 .(541)346-3712 .(541)346-5512 (541)346-4343 Display Advertising... Business Office. riinlfled fldwerlliliig LETTERS Wrong questions In your Nov. 14 editorial examining this year’s election, you asked the wrong ques tions regarding Measure 47. “Are voters greedy?” Rather, you should ask: Are thousands of Oregon taxpayers tired of feeling the inflated sting on their pocket books? Yes, they are. Nobody will disagree with the fact that education is of utmost importance, but allocating funding through higher taxes is not the solution. Within the state budget exists a large sum of money called the General Fund. This is where some education dollars currently originate. This ample account is where more education funding should originate from, rather than being used on the hun dreds of special interest projects that Ore gon has become notorious for catering to. Please refrain from using such conceit ed arguments like “voters didn’t do a good job of educating themselves.” Am I to be lieve that because I chose not to vote as the Emerald mandated that I’m stupid? I think not. I educated myself and came to my own decision based on facts and finance. As a student and a taxpayer, I am able to see both sides of Measure 47 clearly. Pardon my generalization, but I doubt many students on the Emerald editorial board own property. Hence, Oregon’s steep property tax does not affect you. Wait until we enter the real world, start a career, buy a house and raise a family. Then, as bill after bill mounts up, perhaps you will understand the financial burden of today’s tax rates. They are seemingly out of control, and so is your short-sighted judgment. Levi Buchanan Business UWAH misrepresented This is in response to your Nov. 12 edi torial, “Racism is a problem that needs teamwork, not just teams.” I object to your use of the United Women of Asian Her itage as an example of “innumerable stu dent unions based on [students’] heritage.” I wonder if you know anything about the organization. When we formed UWAH a year ago, our goal was to draw together women from numerous Asian cultures, as well as American women who are of Asian her itage. It was not to be an organization of Asian women or an organization of Asian American women. It was to be a combina tion of the two. We believed Asian women and American women of Asian heritage face similar issues, and we believed ad dressing these issues together would be valuable. Moreover, the founding premise of the organization was to educate the University and the Eugene community. I also find fault in the notion that Asian women and Asian-American women have a similar background and therefore, UWAH was formed to be a “place to feel comfortable with ‘your own’ and as a means to receive ASUO fundslor isolated events — certainly not for outreach.” First and foremost, Asian women and Ameri can women of Asian heritage come from very diverse cultures. Moreover, one of our first activities was to conduct a panel discussion on the prob lems that Asian women confront, an event a range of students, faculty and staff at tended. It was an example of what you think student unions should do. I think you should conduct far more re search before you use particular organiza tions as an example of what you think is wrong with such groups. Otherwise, you are among the “uneducated and intoler ant” you criticize in your editorial. Miyuki Taguchi Founder United Women of Asian Heritage
