CONTACTING US
I—i
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
E-MAIL:
ode@oregon. uoregon.edu
ADDRESS:
Oregon Daily Emerald
P.0. BOX 3159
Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode
Perspectives
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Holly Sanders
Senseless squabbling won’t save schools
A GOP
proposal for
tax-free
savings
accounts
provides
campaign
rhetoric but
no solution
Have you every willingly
engaged in a discussion
with someone who you
and your friends secretly
despise? Stop hedging and just admit
that you have and that you know ex
actly why you did it. One of the great
traditions of human interaction is the
superfluous conversation. Even if
you don’t use that particular termi
nology, you know
what I mean.
They’re those con
versations that you
enter into only be
cause you know
you’ll be able to
build a much better
conversation
around them later.
No where is su
perfluous conversa
OPINION
Kameron
Cole
iiuu inuie uuujipiuuuusiy pracucea
than in American electoral politics.
As a case in point, witness the cur
rent congressional flap about educa
tion.
Last Thursday, the Senate passed a
Republican-backed bill that would
allow the establishment of special ac
counts for education. The interest on
these accounts would be tax free and
the money could be applied to pri
vate-school tuition. President Clin
ton, whose own set of education pro
posals was rejected during the same
session, has vowed to veto the bill.
It would be easy to lump this de
bate in with the rest of the verbal
noise that spews forth from the floor
of Congress, but unlike the majority
of political squabbles the govern
ment engages in, this one is actually
about an important issue.
In fact, education is arguably the
most important issue facing Ameri
cans today. Yet there has been a con
sistent pattern of failure on the part
of the government to address the
problems facing education in any
way that comes close to being ra
tional or effective.
The schools that are worst off in
terms of resources tend to serve the
people who are worst off in terms of
resources. Yet the backers of this bill
would have us believe that it’s feasi
ble for these people to find $2,000 a
year to pay for private schools. This
begs the obvious question: If families
whose children are languishing in
substandard, often dangerous
schools could afford to set aside such
a sum, wouldn’t their children al
ready be in private schools? The ob
vious answer: Yes. Indeed, the fami
lies who would reap the most benefit
if this bill were actually enacted
would be the ones who already have
children enrolled in private schools.
That having been said, let’s get to
the real issue. Congress’ plan is most
notable for its complete and utter
failure to apply the most elementary
principles of logic. And the Republi
cans themselves are fully aware of
this. You can tell they are aware by
looking at some of the embarrassing
ly thin arguments that have been
used to support their proposal. These
include the assertion that schools are
subject to market forces; therefore,
the bill would force public schools to
improve by introducing the element
of competition.
Yes, the Republicans know that
their attempt to privatize education
is terminally flawed, and they know
that it’s fated for a quick presidential
veto. Moreover, they know that it
wouldn’t work anyway. And you
know what else? They don’t care.
They don’t care because this whole
debate has been an exercise in super
fluous conversation — a way to give
them something to talk about when
election season rolls around.
To be fair, it should be noted that
Democrats have engaged in their fair
share of bombast as well. Even as re
cent studies point to an increase in
the number of American schools
that are literally falling down
around students and teachers, A1
Gore is vowing to wire them all to
the Internet.
Fixing education is going to be
hard. It’s going to take a lot of time
and cost a lot of money. And it needs
to start now. If America waits until
the elections have been decided and
the volume of political posturing has
died down to consider our options,
there won’t be any left.
Katneron Cole is a columnist for the
Emerald. Her work appears on alter
nate Wednesdays. Her views do not
necessarily represent those of the news
paper.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Control spending
If successful, the McCartan cam
paign for ASUO Executive would
have set a benchmark for-.future
hopefuls as to how much money
should be spent in pursuit of a de
sired outcome. There is some irony
in the observation that the campaign
that promised so many changes on
campus is resorting to the standard
tactic that exists in politics today —
he who spends the most money
wins.
In defense of McCartan, I think
she was a worthy candidate and had
plenty of excellent references. Her
grades and accomplishments can
speak for themselves, and being a
part of all those committees presum
ably means that she cares about
what happens on campus. However,
I see no defense for the manner in
which the McCartan campaign was
run. Those involved obviously
know how people function and felt
that by spending money on two
$500 full-page Emerald advertise
ments plus five dozen T-shirts and a
handful of other creative items, their
shot at winning the election would
greatly increase. While some of the
campaign methods were inventive
and amusing, the level the promo
tion obtained was stupefying. In my
opinion, calling a private residence
to request a vote is unacceptable.
Currently there is no limit on the
amount of money a student can
spend on his or her campaign. Per
haps this is because the McCartan
campaign was the first one to chal
lenge the ethical limits of the influ
ence of money on the elections. As a
result, I see two paths that the stu
dents here can take. The first is to ig
nore what happened this year and
allow future classes to use this elec
tion as a reference for what must be
done in order to win. The other is to
place a limit on the amount of mon
ey that can be spent during a cam
paign in order to preserve any of the
integrity found in student govern
ment — integrity that appears to be
lost in state and federal politics.
RyanTroseth
Economics
Unethical funding
Both your columnists Jeff Shaw
and Hannah Dillon reliably raise
crucial issues and make the intelli
gent reader stop and think. They are
fine journalists and their columns
alone make the ODE worth reading.
Shaw’s latest piece. “Dealing with
the Defense Department,” (ODE,
April 22) was a call to the two-edged
sword of contemplation and action
if ever there was one. Shaw shared
some very troubling quotations of
justification: “The reason I have no
problem taking military money is
because they let me do the science,”
says Matt Ginsberg, founder of the
Computational Intelligence Re
search Lab. For a moment I thought I
was reading Dr. Josef Mengele ex
plaining why he was happy to do
Herr Hitler’s research. Oh, some will
say, that was a different time and
place. Yet if you stand in the shoes
of Iraqi children or balance on the
crutches of the countless land-mine
casualties around the world — all
courtesy of U.S. military-funded
“science” — you’ll get a pretty good
idea of what it may have been like to
be taking a ride in the Nazi cattle
cars.
But why stop with Pentagon mon
ey? By Ginsberg’s amoral logic, if the
Unabomber could have kicked in
enough money, campus labs would
have helped him design more effi
cient “devices.” Hold on, this ques
tion was answered for us by David
Etherington, CIRL director. “The
federal government is far more able
to provide research funding than,
say, Federal Express would be.”
Well, it may look like easy money,
but guess whose money it is? The
feds being so willing to throw our
hard-earned tax dollars at scientists
without ethics or principles some
how does not make it easier for me
to accept. How about the rest of you,
University community?
Vip Short
Eugene
Democracy wins
In 1971, OSPIRG was created to
challenge the status quo. Since then,
unfortunately, they have become the
status quo through monopolistic
politics to the tune of $147,000.
Therefore, I would like to congratu
late my fellow University students
for courageously accepting the chal
lenge set forth by the Honesty Cam
paign, for taking control of our inci
dental burden and voting no on
OSPIRG. Democracy is victorious to
day.
Will Arnold
Residence Hall Association ASPAC
Representative
CORRECTION
In the story
"OPS officer
files discrimina
tion suit” (ODE,
April 28), it
should have
read the investi
gator “inter
viewed 16 indi
viduals and
received exten
sive written in
formation from
one former em
ployee of OPS”
and found that
Williams was
not promoted
due to his per
formance. In ad
dition, the
speaker in the
pull quote on
Page 1 should
have been iden
tified as James
Williams.
The Emerald
regrets the er
rors.