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