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