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
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Shannon Sneed
University needs to push fora diverse community
AN EMERALD EDITORIAL
Too few minorities are
employed on the faculty
at the University, as a
recent report shows
If you are reading this in class,
take a moment to look at the
people sitting around you.
Odds are, many of the faces
you see are white. Now, look at the
person standing in the front of the
room. According to a report by the
Oregon State System of Higher Ed
ucation, there is little more than a
10 percent chance your instructor
is a minority.
Overall, the report indicates the
University and the state system as
a whole rank roughly equal to oth
er comparable institutions in mi
nority hiring. In itself, this is not as
inspiring as it might seem. The
fact is that higher education facili
ties throughout the country have a
disproportionately small number
of minorities on staff.
Ideally, the minority popula
tion at a University would be
roughly proportional to the over
all numbers of particular minori
ties in society. This doesn’t mean
the University should carefully
count the number of different eth
nic groups hired, adding one here
and subtracting one there just to
get the proper mix.
It does mean the University
should be aware of the discrepancy
and should attempt to hire quali
fied minorities when possible.
In particular, the University and
the state have done an abysmal job
of hiring and retaining African
Americans. The report indicates
the University’s staff is only 1.4
percent African-American, far be
low the national level of roughly 9
percent and even lower than the
actual percentage of African
Americans in the population.
The University is certainly not
oblivious to the problem. Efforts
to recruit minorities are under
way, and some departments are
even eligible for incentives if they
strengthen their recruiting efforts
and succeed at their goal.
Nevertheless, at some level
these numbers indicate a failure
on the part of the University and
the state. They are not without ex
planation, however.
The biggest problem is the same
one that plagues every aspect of Uni
versity operations—lack of money.
Without more funding from the
state, the University can’t afford to
pay any of its faculty adequately.
This is particularly harmful for
minority recruitment. Because
they are poorly represented, mi
norities are heavily recruited by
all schools, including those which
have large amounts of money to
offer their faculty.
There is another problem,
though. Many minorities look at
the current lack of diversity in the
state and in the schools and feel
uncomfortable with Oregon.
The University’s lack of minori
ties is matched by the lack of mi
norities in the community. The
message of diversity being sent by
the school is not being reflected in
Eugene or in the faculty. This is
the fundamental problem with
our minority hiring.
A diverse faculty is important
for minority students, who often
feel uncomfortable when sur
rounded by almost exclusively
white faces. Diversity is also im
portant for white students, who
need to be exposed to a range of
cultural experiences.
While the University has tried
to provide diversity for both these
reasons, its reach has been limit
ed. Not only is the faculty insuffi
ciently diverse, but the communi
ty is excessively white as well.
Students need to bring the lessons
of diversity into the community
where they live, eat and work.
Until the message of diversity at
the school reaches beyond a mul
ticultural requirement and a smat
tering of groups associated with
the Multicultural Center, the Uni
versity will continue to have a dif
ficult time recruiting minority fac
ulty members.
This editorial represents the opinion
of the Emerald editorial board. Re
sponses may be sent to ode@ore
gon.uoregon.edu
Drawing Board
Worn comfv RAtxf'
/VtoBE COMpUkiHOHm AUDITORS/
OLD
QVE MJ All YOUR
MOWVNOW.
I _
NEW
GIV**£ AIL YOUR
/VONCY TOMOWOW.
Utt (OHPuCWO Pfip&WQRKf
[adowr
JINP AU VDIIB money TO;
INTERNW- WVtHUt SWVICF
585&na**i*°*
Than"! #* appnenUt^buw»i^
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Homosexuality
more than sex
While I thoroughly agree with
your support of Portland’s policies
regarding all agencies’ treatment of
queers, you showed an irresponsi
bility in referring to queer rights as
an issue of “who one sleeps with.”
Queer theory has advanced far
beyond the issue of mere inter
course; likewise, few queers would
announce their sexual orientation
has to do with nothing else besides
sex. Being queer involves a host of
perceptions, experiences and
thoughts that extend far beyond
one’s sexual behavior.
Kyla Schuller
Comparative literature
New policy framework
Your editorial (ODE, Oct. 16),
which disagreed with President
Frohnmayer’s proposal to change
the way campuses are funded, was
a sad defense of the status quo
when new policies are needed if
Oregon’s colleges and universities
are to meet society’s new needs.
Higher education is more impor
tant to standards of living and qual
ity of life in the Information Age
than ever before, but campuses are
receiving less state taxpayer sub
sidy. Following our old policies, as
you suggested, will only cause our
colleges and universities to slowly
circle the drain.
Your editorial said that if Presi
dent Frohnmayer’s proposal was
adopted, “the University of Oregon
would be forced to compete with
other schools. ” We already do. And
the level of competition is increas
ing as state funding declines.
We need to think of the funding
from the state Legislature as a sub
sidy because the price of the service
we provide to students is lower
than it costs us to deliver it. We are
only able to provide a college edu
cation at a loss because the state
Legislature provides a subsidy and
because we have received private
donations. As the state taxpayer
subsidy has declined, the Univer
sity has become more tuition-dri
ven and market sensitive.
We might wish that things were
different and some still hope that
state support will increase substan
tially to historic levels. But that did
n’t happen last year. In spite of a
very strong economy, higher educa
tion’s share of the state’s general
fund declined again. And don’t ex
pect relief in the future because
Measure 11 requires new prison
construction and because health
care costs rise as people live longer.
One of your justifications for
maintaining the status quo was that
“the University receives state mon
ey, and it was created to serve the
needs of the Oregon community.”
Let’s put that statement in perspec
tive. When the Oregon State Sys
tem of Higher Education was creat
ed in 1929, two-thirds of the total
budget came from the taxpayers
and tuition was about $100. Today,
the state taxpayer subsidy compris
es only 15 percent of the Universi
ty’s total revenues. It is time to let
go of the old notion that the Univer
sity is state supported with a little
bit of tuition revenue and accept
the fact that the University is now
tuition-driven with some subsidy.
In this context it is not a matter of
trying to avoid competition with
other schools but rather which
policies will allow campuses to
compete effectively in a less subsi
dized and more market sensitive
survey.
Reasonable people might differ
about the merits of a centralized
board of higher education versus a
more market-driven approach. But,
I think we would all agree that the
central system and the revenue
sharing approach advocated in
your editorial works better in a
highly subsidized context. The
University's high subsidy days are
far behind it.
As President Frohnmayer’s pro
posal and the recommendations
from the Governor’s Task Force are
discussed in the months ahead,
those with vested interests in the
status quo will argue that we will
lose some things by changing the
system. They will be right.
It would be silly to think that
there were no good qualities to the
old system or that the people who
have dedicated their professional
lives to making it work have some
how failed. Rather, it is simply that
the world has changed and there is
no going back. If Oregonians want
higher standards of living and qual
ity of life in the Information Age,
then we must have strong univer
sities and colleges, which will only
happen after we let go of some out
dated beliefs and create a new poli
cy framework for less subsidized
and more market sensitive condi
tions.
Gerald Kissler
Associate protessor
New data on death
The Emerald’s opposition to
Measure 51 (ODE, Oct. 13 and 14),
which would repeal our assisted
suicide law, did not surprise me. It
was the lack of candor on behalf of
the editorial board which surprised
me, and several points deserve to
be set straight with our student
body.
According to a well documented
study in the Netherlands, the as
sisted suicide, hemlock-style elixir
fails one out of every four times it
is used. The Oregonian cited this
study in its support of Measure 51.
This failure ratio is neither difficult
to explain nor understand; when
the human body ingests poison, it
attempts to expel it through vomit
ing or a myriad of different tech
niques, as our first instinct is sur
vival (see Darwin). The
fundamental problem with Ore
gon’s current assisted suicide law
is that, because we do not allow eu
thanasia (the killing of a patient by
the doctor, which is widely prac
ticed in the Netherlands — in fact,
7 percent of all deaths in the
Netherlands are now assisted), the
doctor cannot take it upon himself
to end the suffering, poisoned pa
tient’s life if the attempt fails. I ask
you, members of the editorial
board, what should be done with
the one in four patients who sur
vive the “dose of death” when they
suffer from excessive vomiting and
pain? Surely you don’t support eu
thanasia; your article frowned on it.
Measure 51 is not a debate on the
virtue of assisted suicide. Measure
16 decided that for us, but when
news of the Holland study came
out, our Legislature sent the bill
back to the people, knowing that
these newly divulged facts might
possibly change our minds. The
Emerald editorial board must
therefore believe that the Oregon
Legislature should have performed
a quick fix on a poorly written bill
— specifically by legalizing eu
thanasia. In fact, the Legislature,
bowing to the moral genius of the
people, believed legalization of eu
thanasia to be a decision too grave
for its power and gave the voters a
second chance to decide for our
selves, in light ofthese new facts.
Use that second chance wisely
and vote yes on Measure 51.
Jonathan Collegio
Economics and political science