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