Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 29, 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 EDfTION: vrww uoregon edu/~ode EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Carl Yeh CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald Clinton failing to build successful presidency Clinton's second term has been marked by scandal rather than leadership Abraham Lincoln was right: You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. But you can fool some of the people some of the time, and in this country, that's more than enough to get you reelected. It is less than one year into his sec OPINION Kameron Cole ond term, and Presi dent Clinton’s “bridge to the 21st century” is starting to look mighty rick ety. The trouble be gan with the sugges tion that his and the first lady's White water dealings may not have been en tirely square. Several criminal con victions, innumerable hours of in quiry and a suicide later, public interest in that debacle seems to be on the wane. Before long though, Paula Jones resurfaced and won the Supreme Court’s permission to sue the presi dent for sexual harassment. She has spent the past few months filing mo tions, scrambling for lawyers and, most disturbingly, telling anyone who will listen that she can accurate ly describe the executive penis. And as if all this wasn't enough, the White House continues to be dogged by charges of fund raising im proprieties. Washington has never been short on scandals, but with scarcely a week passing without some new allegation being leveled, the "Slick Willie” fol lies have become the best show in town. Of course, Clinton is only human; that’s not in dispute here. He puts on his running shorts one leg at a time, just like everyone else. And while one would hope that as the most in fluential political figure in the world he would have the good sense to draw the shades first, that’s not the point here either. I’m not interested in the presi dent’s dubious land deals, his fund raising woes or any of the intimate parts of his anatomy. What concerns me most about Clinton isn’t what he may have done, but rather what I’m certain he hasn’t. Chalk it up to post-Cold War malaise — the lack of a true external enemy — or a less than desperate do mestic economic situation, but the president just can’t seem to find any thing to do. His crusades to improve health care, education and race rela tions have stalled. New campaigns aimed at breast cancer awareness and child care show no signs of faring any better. Clinton aides have not-so-jokingly remarked to members of the media that the chief executive spends more time on the golf course than in the Oval Office. More than one observer of presi dential politics has argued that a president’s first term is devoted largely to winning the hearts of the people, and the second aimed at win ning the hearts of historians. Bill Clinton was once the great hope for change in America, but if he falls into this status quo trap, he faces the very real possibility of becoming just smother fat, cynical, bitter South ern politician. And we already have more than enough of those. Americans, especially young Americans, have little faith in our government. Vietnam, Watergate and “The X-Files” have seen to that. But the current crisis of political creduli ty has less to do with any cigarette smoking men that may be skulking in the shadows than with what our leaders do — or don’t do — out in the open. Clinton has three years to make good on his promises to the nation, and if he intends to do so, the first step is to realize that there is more at stake here than his legacy. Despite having not yet hit the quar ter mark of his new term, the chief is at a crossroads, and it’s time to make a choice. His chances of going down in history as a shining example of presidential integrity are long gone, whether the allegations against him are true or not. The best leaders are the ones who inspire others to take charge. Bill Clinton did that once upon a time. A return to form has the potential to force the disappointed idealists who supported him in the past to reevalu ate their budding cynicism. Clinton has the chance to lead America into a new millennium, not just come along for the ride. If he ris es to the challenge, that will be his legacy. If not, all he’ll leave behind are a slew of sensational headlines, a handful of unfulfilled promises and one washed out bridge. Kameron Cole is a columnist for the Emerald. Her columns appear on alter nate Wednesdays. Her views do not nec essarily represent those of the Emerald. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Nike protest I'm writing to report on an event that the Emer ald did not. Last Saturday, Oct. 18, a group of stu dents, known as Students for Action, Labor and Equity, took a stand against an important issue that many people seem to not fully understand or want to understand. We protested Nike as part of the International Nike Awareness Day; we passed out leaflets and hung banners at the University’s Homecoming game to denounce Nike’s increas ing encroachment on the University’s freedom, as well as its dubious labor practices abroad. While this is indeed a highly controversial issue — and we certainly have a stance on it — our main goal was and will continue to be to create sensibility, awareness and critical discussion within the cam pus community. Given the fact that the University has received this "gift” of $25 million from Phil Knight, of which Dave Frohnmayer receives about $30,000 a year. Given the fact that Nike has a $7 million contract with the athletic department and that Nike gave us $10 million for the renovation of the “Knight” Library, this is what our message is: Should we not question the true value of this money? Should we naively assume that these “gifts” are free of private interest? Can we safely assume that our school president is not bound by this money? Is it rational to assume this? Even fur ther, should we not question where this money comes from? Where and how is this money made? And should a public institution accept this mon ey considering where and how it is made? These are important issues that we all need to think about and that the University must address. Furthermore, the question of public responsibility for the adequate funding of education arises. Per haps if schools were adequately funded, the Uni versity would not have to resort to ethically ques tionable practices — namely, the acceptance of corporate dollars that restrict the University’s freedom of speech, its independence and shadow its integrity as a public institution. And still, dol lars that are made out of the labor of Vietnamese and Indonesian workers, who are surely not treat ed like Nike workers in Beaverton, but who, as re cently reported in the Oregonian, “have just enough to meet basic needs." We must deal with this issue; it is of primordial importance, and it will set precedence for the fu ture of this University. Can we, as privileged citi zens, as students, faculty and staff, continue to ig nore this because it benefits us to do so? Can we continue to ignore all the problematic issues sur rounding Nike’s presence in our institution be cause our schools gets money from it and that’s the bottom line? No, we cannot. To do so is dis tressingly insensitive, ignorant and socially irre sponsible. 1 would like to invite all those concerned, in cluding President Frohnmayer, to respond and start an effective campus-wide dialogue on this is sue. Claudia Villena Sociology Thumbs To the Senate anti discrimination bill: A new proposal be ing considered by the U.S. Senate would make it ille gal to discriminate apinst people in the job market on the basis of their sexuality. Amazing ly, when this piece of legislation was up fora vote in a previoussession.it was defeated. We can only hope the Senate realizes that the legally accept able practice some companies and in dividuals have of firing or failing to promote homosex uals is absolutely wrong. To expanding Portland's urban growth boundary: The Rose City may be 100 miles away, but growth issues concern the entire Northwest and the lifestyle people will have in the future. Portland has won praise from urban planners for its ef forts to maintain a vital downtown and restrain excessive growth. While the expansion is only 5,000 acres and won’t destroy the entire region, it is an unnecessary concession to de velopers. Success ful city planning in the 21st century will require increased density, greater re liance upon pedes trian travel and mass transit, com pact and self-con tained communities and a move away from the suburban sprawl that defines “communities” like Lake Oswego, Beaverton and Gre sham. By maintain ing a tight growth boundary, Metro could have forced planners to create more efficient com munities that would begin to move away from the great scourge of cities — the car.
