CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541) 346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL P.0. BOX 3159
ode@oregon.uoregon.edu Eugene. Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www uoregon edu -ode
irMutti'nn'iiilWWlilWMilllil'HllilllillUMM'fcU'WMlII II I'lM II >'11111 Nl iWNWI 11A Hill I .
Perspectives
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITORS
Laura Cadiz
Sarah Kickler
amaaMMMHK
Using the censor’s shears in the new year
Welcome to 1998.
For those of you
who lost con
sciousness some
time in late 1996 and are just now
struggling back into reality. 1997
was roughly 365 days long, and
every day was packed with good
ness.
Goodness has different mean
ings for different people. For me.
it means a swirl of vaguely un
pleasant, half-recalled events that
would be better left in the foggy
past.
Government leaders, corporate
OPINION
Mike
Schmierbach
heads and the
smiling collection
of media com
mentators who
are waiting to
slime their way to
a juicy post advis
ing presidents
how not to get
caught have a dif
ferent idea of
what goodness
entails, r or them, the new year is
an opportunity to highlight the
porcelain sparkle of the toilet
bowl that was the past year.
Such revisionism requires a lit
tle censorship, a lot of spin con
trol and a fair amount of what
George Orwell termed
“newspeak.” Events are conve
niently forgotten or cloaked in the
most sweet-smelling rhetoric
available.
Well, if they can alter history,
so can 1.1 don’t want to forget
about labor or environmental
abuses, however. I just want to
make sure that 1 never have to
read about a select number of sto
ries again.
The best solution I can think of
is to steal an idea from Matt
Greening. We had the same jour
nalism teacher — shared the same
suffering — and 1 certainly think
life is hell.
Therefore. I feel entitled to pre
sent my 1998 forbidden words
list: What follows are words and
phrases 1 hope never to read or
hear again. If all goes well, this
will eliminate talk about the sto
ries that go with them.
Mibe Scbnuerhacb is the editorial editor
for the Emerald His rieus do not neces
sarily represent those of the paper
advisory ratings,
altemative-anything,
America's Favorite Fries,
amphitheater, awareness,
back, to the books, ^
ballroom dance, Big Stink,
Bill Sizemore, binge drinking,
Buddy, the presidential pooch,
Chumbawamba, corporate donors,
cyberjoumalism, Diana, the people's princess,
downsizing. Dr. Death, electronica,
fatally flawed, faux-anything, focus, Gardenburger,
Generation Next, Generation Y, heroin chic, lean,
the Information Age, Information Superhighway,
just do it, the Lincoln Bedroom, love,
medical marijuana, the militia movement,
millennium bug, Must See TV, NAFTA,
near miss, P.C., pepper sprav,
proactive, quasi-anything, riot,
road rage, septuplet, ska,
Spice-anything, swing, taskforce,
tear gas, trip hop,
7V newsmagazines, Unabomber,
nadmMml rirtimmenialitv,
virtual pet, workfare,
Zeitgeist
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
McDonald comments
misleading
In response to the comments made by
Duncan McDonald (ODE, Dec. 4) about
student protest of corporate influence on
campus, what exactly does McDonald
mean by stating that "you have to be able
to think to use the standard of a reasonable
person” when referring to student protest
ers? McDonald has not only made an of
fensive attack on students, but he has
demonstrated obvious disrespect for the
j students that actually do think and have
the skills to be critical of the growing trend
of corporate influence on campus.
McDonald denounces Student Action
for Labor and Equity as having an agenda.
Weil, we certainly do: Our agenda is to ed
ucate the students of this campus on the
growing influence that private and corpo
rate donations have; our agenda is to build
a movement that will challenge the pres
ence of corporate funds in the University;
our agenda is to make sure this University
accepts money that is clean — monev that
comes from sources that are sociallv and
environmentally acceptable to the stu
dents.
Further, McDonald claims that "to be
generous ... they are misinformed." Not
only is this another diminishing and de
grading attack on his part, but it is also not
true. How exactly is it that we are misin
formed? For isn’t it true that there is a
growing number of questionable private
and corporate donations being made to the
University that do have strings attached?
McDonald cannot deny the fact that Phil
Knight's S25 million donation included a
SI million salary increase for University
President Dave Frohnmaver is a serious
dubious practice. Indeed, the fact that our
president is being paid a million dollars by
the CEO of one of America's largest corpo
rations is a seriously questionable ethical
practice.
The need for a student-faculty review
committee that would evaluate private
and corporate donations of more than
Si0.000 on social and environmental cri
teria does exist. For how truly reliable can
the present committee be in discerning en
vironmental and social concerns in pri
vate donations when it is made up of
"deans, directors, the University president
as well as representatives from the Depart
ment of University Development and the
Oregon Foundation”? Don't these individ
uals have a very specific perspective?
-And. more important, do they really rep
resent the views of students and faculty?
\%e are asking for the opportunity to
have representative input in the accep
tance of private monetary gifts; we are ask
ing for our social and environmental con
cerns over private donations to be
addressed appropriately. We see this as
being done through the establishment of a
student and faculty committee that will re
view all donations of more than $10,000.
Is it fair to deny students this type of rep
resentation when we not only constitute
the biggest population on campus but are
also the biggest source of income for the
University?
McDonald has an agenda and a job to do
as well. He is the person who is in charge
ot bringing in the big corporate donations
on campus. As such, we should be careful
in our understanding of his "comments”
and his “views."
Claudia Villena
Student Action for Labor and Equity