Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 14, 1997)
▼ EDITORIAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Steven Asbury MANAGING EDITOR: Thom Schoenbom NIGHT EDITOR: Laura Cadiz EDITORIAL EDITORS: Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond ' r , , A ' - editorials, letters, commentary and perspective NEWSROOM: (541)346-5511 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: (541) 346-3712 BUSINESS OFFICE: (541)346-5512 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: (541)346-4343 Bliss*m ■ OUR OPINION: The ASUO’s proposed construction of a campus amphitheater could be a welcome addition When asked about his plans for build ing an amphitheater in the EMU Courtyard to celebrate the anniver sary of University student govern ment, ASUO President Matthew Scotten certainly isn’t afraid to speak up. "Maybe I’m just a visionary, but [the amphithe ater] is going to be a beautiful place,” he said. “Its uses are limited to only the imagination.” “A lot of [student] history could be lost if we don’t recognize [the 100th ann i versary of the ASUO].” We don’t quite buy this rhetoric — primarily that regarding ASUO history — but we do believe the amphitheater is a good thing. There’s no denying that Scotten and Vice Presi dent Glen Banfield’s brainchild for celebrating stu dent activism is problematic. In an age of budget cuts, Measure 47 and major campus deficiencies, spending $350,000 of state dollars on an amphithe ater seems like a ridiculous use of funds. But after examining the circumstances, details and history behind the decision, the project be comes more positive — and a lot smarter. The source of funding for the proposal, the Over Realized Fund, has sat relatively untouched for close to 20 years, accumulating more than $800,000. The fund is the product of years of over estimation in school enrollment, and has never been used for any major purpose. It’s high time it was used. Thousands of students have poured money into the fund with absolutely no results. And if money from the supply was used for the amphitheater, about $500,000 \*ould still remain in the account. This keeps the fund on solid ground, meeting both ASUO requirements and its potential as an “emergency” fund. With this established, the amphitheater is the most effective and practical use of the money. No other option gives students such a tangible, imme diate return on their tuition and other fees. Alterna tives like a parking structure or improving campus lighting are indeed important, but just won’t work with the amount of money available. Other options like giving the Over-Realized money back to each student and putting the am phitheater decision on the spring ballot are also du bious. Such a major use of the fund is unprecedent ed so exact procedure is vague, but both options would be either extremely difficult or impossible. Nonetheless, the amphitheater is still a bit of a gamble. It rains for over half the year in Eugene. When will the facility be used? And will students really use it, even in good weather? We think they will, and a portable cover over the stage will help operations in more rainy seasons. The existence of a top-notch out door theater with a 500-person capacity would benefit not only student groups but any student who ever walks through the center of campus. The amphitheater would encourage groups to diversify their programming to a more visible are na. And passers-by could easily be at tracted to events at the facility, draw ing in a more diverse audience. With such possibilities, the am phitheater has the potential to not only improve the general campus atmosphere but also open up the world of student groups and gov ernment to the average student. For the facility to become a reality, the use of the Over-Re alized funds must be ap proved by the ASUO Stu dent Senate early next term. Scotten says if the proposal passes there, it will most likely be approved by the appropriate peo ple, constructed over the summer and finished by the fall. It the senate rejects the proposal, Scotten says no project of its magnitude will happen in his tenure. With upcoming EMU renovations, the amphitheater must be constructed now — or most likely never. And even if the senate approves in a close vote, Scotten says he may drop the proposal in light of any widespread opposition. The project needs, and deserves, student sup port. It’s the best idea we’ve seen come out of the ASUO in a long time. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emer ald editorial board. LETTERS Why boycott? I would like to take issue with the two letters published [ODE, March 6) regarding the boycott of GardenBurger. In one, Eloina Gonzales and Daniel Zettler allege that “the individual stu dents, as well as the community at large, have defined the situation and made a choice. No to exploitation!” etc. How interesting that they point to a need to understand participatory democracy. As a member of my resi dence hall, a member of my complex’s President’s Council and as a member of RHGC, the “individual students” and “community at large” told me in no uncertain terms that they didn’t want RHGC to support the boycott and should indeed remain neutral. Had they contacted members of the housing community, they would have learned this rather quickly. On a personal level, 1 wish to ad dress the notion in this same letter that says corporations operate “outside of community notions of social responsi bility.” It is my understanding that Wholesome and Hearty, the maker of GardenBurger, is a socially responsible company. Furthermore, Wholesome and Hearty alleges that they are in no way connected to the farms in ques tion. This is the crux of my lack of sup port for the boycott. No one in MEChA has been able to explain why exactly GardenBurger has been targeted, ex cept to say that it is a high visibility product. Perhaps the social responsi bility involved in boycotting Garden Burger and jeopardizing these jobs needs to be reexamined as well. My message: Cast aside your tired exclamation points! Sit down and talk to the “community at large” as fellow adults, not as ranting propagandists. Tell us why, in spite of Wholesome and Hearty’s avowal of disinterest, we should boycott as well. If boycotting GardenBurger is not the way to make a positive change, admit it and tell us what we can do. Trevor Miller Biology Letters policy The Oregon Daily Emerald will attempt to print all letters containing comments on topics of interest to the University community. Letters to the editor must be typed, double spaced and include the author's name, signature, and phone number. The identification of the writer must be veri fied when the letter is submitted. Submis sions signed by more than three people must include at least one and no more than three names designated to represent the group. Letters must be limited to 250 words or less. The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter for length, clarity, grammar and style. READER VOICES What do you think of the proposed amphitheater? “It would be kind of cool to have an am phitheater to sit in, chill at and hear some bands play." Jason Gold Freshman Political Science “I think building an am phitheater is a good idea, but only if it is used, or else it will be a waste of $350,000.” Cesar Sroka Sophomore General Science E«S: ES2 “Well, with budget cuts, I’m not sure it's the best use of money right now, but if it were to work out, it would be great for students.” Diane Schuirman Graduate Student Journalism “It’s great to have more diversity come to the campus. I’d probably hang out more at the EMU and be interested in more activities if there were more bands playing." Nicole Cipriano Senior English/Art
