Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 17, 1997)
CONTACTING US NEWSROOM: ADDRESS: (541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald E-MAIL: P.O.BOX 3159 ode<@oregon uoregon.edu Eugene, Oregon 97403 ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode Perspectives EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Nicole Krueger ‘Passive smoking’ actively hurts students The haze of second-hand smoke that hangs over campus is harming non smokers At least 90 percent of Uni versity students smoke. While that statistic seems high, the Ameri can Medical Association claims nine out of 10 people in the United States are exposed to cigarette smoke. When the number of smokers on 13th Avenue is combined with the OPINION Jonas Allen AMA’s figures, it doesn’t take a math major to fig ure the statistic is closer to 10 out of 10 people at the University. But does that necessarily mean you are a smoker? Basically, yes. How many times have you been walking to class and second-hand smoked a cigarette on the way? For many non-smokers at the Universi ty, myself included, this is a daily z° event. The AMA uses the phrase “passive smoking" to describe this situation. Passive or active, giving the label “smoker” to non smoking students is unpleasant. When non-smokers are put at risk because they have no control over what they’re breathing, the situation becomes unfair and unhealthy. The Student Health Center recently surveyed more than 400 people and found that 43 percent smoke at least casu ally. The health center claims its survey is representative of the University population. Based on enrollment projec tions, that means nearly 7,400 students smoke on campus. The remaining 9,800 become “smokers” in their own right, although not by choice. Walking from the Bean parking lot to Gilbert Hall is a good time for those 9,800 to practice being Bill Clinton (in other words, not inhaling). Those “executive exercises” will pay off when the true test comes along — meandering past 150 Columbia. It’s truly a catch-22 situation: You can walk through campus breathing like normal, or you can hold your breath every time you pass a smoker. Either way, you cough, choke and pass out. Thankfully, the University has heard non-smokers’ gasps for fresh air. The residence halls no longer offer smoking rooms to students, a policy that housing director Mike Eyster says “is going pretty well.” According to the American Lung Association, second hand smoke contains more toxins than actually smoking a fdtered cigarette. So while it’s great the residence hall pro gram is going well, where does that leave non-residents who walk through clouds all over campus? It leaves them looking for help. Unfortunately, they are usually left holding their breath, because the University is unable to do much of anything. A public campus means freedom to smoke, whether non-smokers like it or not. It also doesn’t help that opin ions on smoking have a tendency to change. “A lot of people say they don’t [smoke], but when they get here they start to smoke,” Eyster said. So why do people pick up the habit in the first place? If smoking is as physically and psychologically addic tive as many people claim, maybe some non-smokers be come hooked after numerous trips down 13th Avenue. Maybe they succumb to peer pressure that tells them smoking is cool. Maybe smoking is part of an obscure initiation rite that some people go through to gain popularity. The greek system used to have initiation rites, common ly referred to as “hazing." While that word has certain con notations (forced smoking is not among them), hazing also has become the best explanation for what is going on over our heads and in our lungs. As the number of smokers increases daily, the haze on campus gets lower and darker. These clouds aren’t just fall rain-makers, they are lifetime cancer-causers. Maybe the haze is blurring my vision, but kicking the habit seems the healthiest choice for all smokers, active and passive. The U.S. Dept, of Health and Human Services says smoking is not the most dangerous cause of illness and death, but it is the easiest to prevent. True, quitting is easier said than done, but smokers owe it to the health of everyone around them to try. Jonas Alien is a columnist for the Emerald. His columns appear on alternate Fridays. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald. UTTERS TO THE EDITOR I Nike whitewash Michael Hines’ whitewash of Nike’s la bor abuses (ODE, Oct. 15) falls far short of a fair examination of the facts. A number of easily verifiable arguments refute Nike’s claims, but it’s not the purpose of this let ter to list them. I am writing to emphasize the article’s shortcomings. First, it essentially prints the highlights of a “press conference” called by Nike. The article itself points out that Nike, presum ably using a small portion of its gargantuan PR budget, “chose to hold” the conference with college publications in a transparent attempt to preempt newly documented criticism. I don’t have a problem with covering press conferences; that’s what journalists do. But journalists also have an obligation to make an effort to at least make a cursory attempt to cover the other side. The only opposition Hines’ article quotes is a Web page he selected, it appears, at random. He lumps all Nike critics together as express ing claims "similar to” those published on this randomly selected Web page. There are at least two problems with this: Initially, there are plenty of people on campus who are vocal Nike critics. How about the Student Insurgent? What about the new campus group SALE, which touts anti-corporatism specific to Nike as its main message? These are sources Hines could have cited with a five-minute phone call or a stroll across campus. Instead, he chose to do a Web search. Why? Also re member that these are only campus sources. A wealth of groups in the commu nity also could have commented. In Port land, a group called Justice: Do it, Nike co ordinates many activist projects. All of these people were easily available by phone or in person, yet no phone call was made. The second problem with this failure to research is that Hines misses two new studies which completely refute Nike’s version of events. How hard were these studies to find? They were covered on the front page of the most recent issue of The OTHER Paper. Relying on a Web page is lazy, but failure to research recent happen ings is simply inexcusable. Nike’s execu tives were obviously looking for college re porters to simply regurgitate their version of events — sadly, that is exactly what happened. I am concerned that the Emerald has, to my knowledge, not yet published a single article critical of Nike. And I’m not just talking about editorials; given Hines’ piece, it seems that the Emerald shies away from quoting real, live, interviewable people in favor of Web sites. I consider this an alarming trend and hope for more in depth investigative reporting in the future. At the very least, I hope for a phone call the next time the Emerald runs a piece about Nike. Jeff Shaw English Cheap labor Re.: “Nike labor practices: Company of ficials say conditions and wages for their workers in Vietnam are good” (ODE, Oct. 15). That Dusty Kidd and other characters on the Nike pad buttress their butts should surprise no one. But Brian Quinn of Har vard says Nike’s employees get a better break than other workers in the Third World. Geewillickers, yes, less misery is better than absolute misery. Categorically My favorite Kidd quote: “The idea was that we had great design talent in Ameri ca, but we didn’t have great manufactur ing, so we would come to Asia to have the manufacturing done.” Is it the ancient ma chinery Americans insist on using that is so awful? Our outmoded technology com pared to Indonesia or China? Our unwill ingness to launch into the computer age? Or is it the lazy people who just have no incentive to increase efficiency and pro ductivity? Why do Asian companies risk setting up production facilities in Ameri ca, like Hyundai, Sony, etc., locally? These are all rhetorical questions. Labor is cheaper there. That’s all. If U.S. capital could smash unions and discipline labor in America down to a competitive level, i.e. the lowest common-global de nominator, then the manufacture of the products of U.S. corporations, e.g. Nike, would not have to go so far from the prime market, i.e. America. If U.S. labor wants to eliminate the threat of outsourcing manu factures to foreign labor pools, then they must either decrease their demands in ex change for their labor, or increase their sol idarity with the workers of the world. It would be too ironic to start with Viet nam. .. Chris Brady Graduate student Mikva lecture I came away from last night’s Abner Mikva lecture reminded of a witty defini tion I once read of an apple: “An apple is a spherical object containing thirty-two chemicals, dipped in wax and gassed. In the long run, an apple is as likely to bring on a doctor as to keep one away.” Joseph Austin Eugene
