▼ EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Laura Cadiz
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
muni
NEWSROOM:
(541) 346-5511
DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
(541) 346-3712
BUSINESS OFFICE:
(541) 346-5512
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
(541)346-4343
Thoughts of Nike takeover unwarranted
■ OUR OPINION: Phil Knight’s $1 million
presidential endowment is a gift, not a
business maneuver
When Nike CEO Phil Knight gave
$25 million to the University last
spring, the community reaction
was generally positive. The largest
college in the state was receiving one of the
largest public donations ever in Pacific North
west history. Why not be happy?
But when Knight specifically allocated $1
million of his gift to the University President’s
salary, the public cried foul. How could the
leader of one of the nation’s most influential
corporations directly pay part of the salary of
one of the state’s most important public figures?
President Frohnmayer has great power over
University policy and operations, people said.
Therefore, Phil Knight will now have indirect
(or maybe direct) control over the University —
hence “Nike University.”
Nike University? This claim is unrealistic and
simply the product of an underlying paranoia
over anything “big.” Nike is quite a large com
pany. Its products are sold all over the world.
So when its CEO donates $1 million to Frohn
mayer’s salary, people get scared. And an ini
tial fear is justified. But that’s where it should
stop.
Knight said he donated the money to entice
Frohnmayer to stay in his position as president.
Frohnmayer, of course, is a popular man, even
generating talk of a possible U.S. Senate or
House run. Knight no doubt hopes the added
salary will make Eugene seem a bit more at- J
tractive than Washington. z'
This attempt at influence by donation f
is a bit questionable, but really harmless
in itself. Knight just wants Frohnmayer V
to stay, not start a special Nike major in \
the business school. /
And Frohnmayer, no matter what, (
looks bad in the situation. He wants to V
make money for the University, even
make the president position more compet
itive. But the fact is, he’s accepting money for
himself. This doesn’t look good on the surface.
And the public recognized it.
But after these initial fears are recognized,
one should see that the $25 million donation
and the few restrictions set on that money will
only be helpful to the University.
The discrepancy between Knight the citizen
and Knight the CEO needs to be established. He
is a private citizen, a very rich one. He made the
decision, for whatever reason, to give a lot of
money to the University. He has not asked for
any say in University internal affairs, and
there’s no sign he will do so. What are we so
afraid of?
The initial fears, as outlined earlier, are justi
fied. But ultimately, the donation will only help
V/
44*
The University of OregoNike
the University. Blind paranoia over corpora
tions is unnecessary and hurtful to everyone in
volved.
We seriously doubt there will ever be any late
night talks between Frohnmayer and Knight,
talking over key University policy. We doubt
Knight will ever demand “Just do it” signs be
erected all over campus.
We should be careful. Let’s not forget that.
Nike is a strong presence on this campus, and
the donation could strengthen this. And its
overseas labor practices are under intense
scrutiny. But these doubts over the corporation
don’t translate into valid reasons to oppose
Knight’s individual gift, as long as one wants
the University to succeed.
If Knight shows any indication he wants to
“control” the University, we’ll call him on it.
But until then, his gift can only make the Uni
versity better.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board.
“If this is a surprise
to you, it’s also a
surprisetome.it
doesn't bother me
that I’m not the first
choice. I'm the best
choice.”
JenyGremi* an
nouncing his new
position as head
coach of the Uni
versity of Ten
nessee basketball
program
“i remember
thinking There's
300 million people
outthereandone
of them is right for
me'—but you
don’t know if
you'll ever meet
them or how you’ll
doit."
Paul McCartney,
describing the in
spiration for his
new single
“Young Boy”
“I wish Jackie
Robinson was alive
today because I
think that 25 years
from now, Ameri
can blacks won’t be
» baseball..."
Dung, for
mer professional
baseball player and
scout, on the alien
ation of blacks in
baseball today
"These strawber
ries from Califor
nia are absolutely
safe to eat."
U.S. Agriculture
Secretary Ann
Veneman's reac
tion to the spread
of Hepatitis A
caused by conta
minated strawber
ries from Mexico
“I have no martyr
complex, but i
also don’t believe
in giving the Irani
ans the pleasure
of disrupting my
everyday life.”
Author Salman
Rusiidtaonthe$2
million bounty
Iranian fundamen
talists have on his
head
LETTERS
Who we are
Many people believe that being
gay consists of nothing more than a
specific act or a set of behaviors.
Such a view is inaccurate and con
signs the person who is homosexual
to the status of a morally corrupt or
mentally ill individual. This is the
view promulgated by anti-gay per
sons and political groups.
The truth is that being gay is an
intimate, integrated aspect of one’s
identity that, like heterosexuality, is
not tied to a specific behavior at all.
This idea is perhaps best under
stood when you consider the fact
that gay males and lesbians, prior to
any kind of sexual activity, identify
themselves as virgins.
The point is that there is a distinc
tion between what people do and
who they are. And for gay males and
lesbians, like heterosexual persons,
who we are is much more important
and central to our humanity. For ex
ample, being gay is the social equiv
alent of having an alternate race, re
ligion or national origin.
Passing judgment on people
based on who they are is prejudice
and passing judgment on people be
cause they are gay is die moral
equivalent of racism.
Although there are people who
cannot see gay males and lesbians
for who they are, there are increas
ing numbers of people who are real
izing that same-sex attraction is a
consistent, identifying feature of hu
man personality that cannot be de
nied.
Don Paulsen
North Sioux City, SD
Campaign apology
As candidates for ASUO Execu
tive, we realize the importance of
taking responsibility for our actions.
That is why we would like to apolo
gize for overlooking the fact that the
first set of posters we used were
printed on non-recyclable material.
We would like to assure everybody
that all campaign materials will be
printed on recyclable materials.
We would also like to thank the
people who brought this matter to
our attention and would welcome
any further comments, suggestions
or concerns. We can be reached at
asha@oregon.uoregon.edu or bran
dons@oregon.uoregon.edu.
Brandon Lee Smith
Asha Mary John
ASUO Candidates
OCA repeat
So, the OCA is at it again. It is
putting a measure on the ballot in
November called the Family Act,
but it’s slipping things other than
marriage into this bill, as it has in the
past. Yet again, the measure in
cludes job discrimination, censor
ship in public libraries and misin
formation.
You’re voting for more than just
marriage on this one. Before you
sign the OCA’s petition or vote yes
on the measure, think of that. Con
sider the repercussions of legalising
discrimination. Regardless of how
you feel about gays or lesbians, do
you really want to be held responsi
ble for condemning a large portion
of the population to second-class cit
izenship?
Think about this: Who’s next? If
the OCA can do it to gay people,
who’s next on the list for legal preju
dice? Almost every minority in this
country was at one time the target of
legal prejudice. Will we return to a
time when people are judged by
their race or religion? These groups
have almost broken free. If you think
that you’re immune to being the tar
get of legal prejudice, and you sup
port the OCA, think again. You may
be next.
Jennifer Petersen
Chemistry