Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 1, 1997)
Y EDITORIAL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Steven Asbury MANAGING EDITOR: Thom Schoenbom NIGHT EDITOR: Thom Schoenbotn EDITORIAL EDITORS: Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond . J editorials, letters, commentary and perspective NEWSROOM: (541)346-5511 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: (541) 346-3712 BUSINESS OFFICE: (541)346-5512 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: (541) 346-4343 Fighting over Equality Journalism Professor Lauren Kessler probably wasn’t ex pecting such a reaction to her new book on the 1994-95 University women’s basketball team. It wasn’t that Full Court Press: A Season in the Life of a Winning Basketball Team and the Women Who Made It Happen did n’t warrant a reaction. It did. The surprising aspect is just where the reaction came from. Before the book was even pub lished, head coach Jody Runge spoke out against Kessler’s por trayal of the team. And since then, at least one player has voiced her concerns over the author’s report ing and writing methods. One would expect criticism like this from people who don’t want women’s basketball to succeed, but coming from coaches and players within the sport, the protests are all the more intrigu ing. Much of the conflict lies be tween Runge and Kessler. Both women desire more success and attention for women’s basketball. Both women hoped the book would help achieve this goal. Now they aren’t speaking to each other. The dispute is ironic at its core. Both parties want the same thing but cannot agree on how to accom plish it. And both women have ar guments that at least warrant dis cussion, if not validation. Runge is unhappy with the way Kessler presented uie ituaiiuiismp ue tween her and her players. At certain points in Full Court Press, Rnnge appears downright cruel in her treatment of the women she is being paid to coach. And Runge also objects to the presentation of many of her play ers. H One would expect criticism like this from people who don’t want women’s basketball to succeed, but comingfrom coaches and players within the sport, the protests are all the more intriguing. -95 Kessler, on the other hand, stands by her choices. She says de scribing the weaknesses and uglier aspects of the team and season will ultimately make both Runge and the players more admirable. On this point, Kessler is right — but for different reasons. Runge says she feels “betrayed” by the author, to whom she gave complete access during the basket ball season. Kessler “made herself part of our family,” Runge told The Oregonian. But then Kessler had the audacity to write not just positive things about the team, but everything. In doing this, Kessler did her job. As a journalist, one must re port reality, not just selected as pects of that reality. The book is often very candid, and definitely not always pretty. But it’s not sup posed to be pretty; it’s supposed to be true. A season in the life of a Division I women’s basketball team is not always fun. It’s not even always exciting. And Kessler accurately presents this. Runge may feel be trayed, and perhaps she has a right to be surprised. She no doubt gave hours of her time, and much more of her privacy, to Kessler. And she most likely felt she should be re warded for that. It’s unfortunate she doesn’t feel Full Court Press is a reward. Kessler’s book isn’t perfect. Mi nor factual errors abound, and she often doesn’t bother to identify characters by name. Her reporting method of placing thoughts in people’s heads has also been ques tioned by at least one of the book’s subjects. But her book is not mean spirited, and generally speaking, it’s accurate. On one level, Runge should be speaking out. As a coach, she wants to protect her players from anything negative. And Kessler’s descriptions could be perceived as threatening. But really, Kessler’s book can only help present and fu ture players. It is blunt and ugly at times, but in the end, it’s a celebra tion. Because Kessler intended for the book to be positive, Runge’s criticism seems all the more hurt ful. However, Runge only wants to advance her team and program. But then isn’t that what Kessler warns? Because of this irony, the conflict between the two women is complicated and ultimately, tragic. We hope these two women can resolve their differences and in stead of working against each oth er, start to work with each other. Their important and noble cause needs all the teamwork it can get. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. 7 A' $M&*see:. CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald Overheard “This business is very corrupting, and I don’t want him to be a part of it. As much as I can keep him away from it, I will.” Rosie O’Donnell on why she won't have her adopted son on her television show “We are so very thankful that we have been recipients of this opportunity to prepare for membership in Their Kingdom, and to experi ence Their boundless Caring and Nurturing.” An excerpt from the Heaven's Gate Internet page j i “These ratings should come with their own advisory. Warning: These ratings may make parenting harder." Joanne Cantor, communications professor, on how ineffective television ratings systems are at monitoring what children watch, as quoted in The Los Angeles Times “There can be no advance in the peace process unless we see a total disavowal of terrorism and actions by the Palestinian Au thority against terror organizations.” David Bar-lllan, aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the Mideast peace process “The crusher is that ‘Jerry Maguire' was the only studio film that deserved to get a Best Picture nomination.” Veteran screenwriter William Goldman on why 1996 was “the worst year in Hollywood history” LETTERS Nike University On the Friday before Spring Break, the President announced that he was accept ing Phil Knight’s offer of a $40,000 raise to make the office of the President nation ally competitive. The acceptance of this corporate salary boost is both unaccept able and unethical. We cannot have cor porations paying the salary of administra tors. The administration knew this would be an unpopular idea, so they tried to hide it by making the announcement over Spring Break. This offer and Frohnmayer’s sub sequent acceptance spits on the line of in tegrity that separates philanthropic efforts from straight out prostitution of Universi ty control. Try as it might, Nike Corporation can not take the place of the Oregon Legisla ture. There must be a statewide effort to raise the academic bar on this campus. With a Presidential Knight Chair, Nike Corp. now has more of a say in campus politics than students or faculty or maybe even the Oregon Legislature. This raise may make the presidential salary more competitive, but it has flushed the credi bility of the office right down the toilet. The president’s office should have had the sense to refuse money that clearly in terferes with the goals and duties of that office. This must be undone. The Presi dent must return the money he accepted. If the University feels we need to re main competitive on a national level, let us find another way to do it. Make the Ore gon Legislature do their job. It is hard to argue that we are not the University of Nike when Phil Knight gets to write checks directly to Frohnmayer’s pocket. Ben Unger ASUO Student Senate
