Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 30, 1998)
CONTACTING US 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 Mike Schmierbach The people’s Choice AN EMERALD EDITORIAL \ Voters, not the GOP, should decide if Bill Sizemore appears on the November ballot As constructed, the American political system is a funny thing. Voters don’t select issues, poli cies or parties; our ballots are cast for highly personal reasons, and voters select individuals, not policies. Many people vote based on party membership, but most vot ers, especially in a highly inde pendent state such as Oregon, select candidates for a range of issues that have little to do with the letter next to a candidate’s name. Until the political process moves beyond the current sys tem and its two painfully simi lar parties, we think it should be the candidate and not his or her political affiliation that voters focus on. It is because voters pick can didates and not slates that we have a primary process. Other wise, parties would simply se lect a candidate who was most likely to win and best represent ed the values of the party hierar chy. This is why Bill Sizemore should stay in the race. Sizemore has been under at tack ever since The Oregonian published an article detailing the string of unpaid debts the anti-tax lobbyist had left behind. Sizemore doesn’t deny the debts exist, and they should certainly factor into any voter’s decision. Nevertheless, Sizemore was aware of his financial past be fore he entered the race, and he obviously felt it wouldn’t inter fere with his ability to be elected and govern. The fact that his past is now public knowledge shouldn’t affect Sizemore’s will ingness to campaign and lead. Oregon GOP leaders don’t necessarily feel the same way, however. Oregon Senate Presi dent Brady Adams announced that he would gladly leap into the race if Sizemore ducks out. If Adams wanted to be gover nor, he should have put his name on the ballot in the begin ning. This need not have been as a Republican; there is certainly nothing wrong with a candidate running as an independent be cause he or she isn’t pleased with the selections of the two major parties. In fact, Adams should certain ly feel free to run for the gover nor position this fall. But he shouldn’t play political games and demand Sizemore exit the race. Sizemore is no less quali fied to run now than he was when he first expressed interest in the governor position. It is the political support of the state Re publican leadership that has shifted. Substituting Adams into the race for Sizemore would be dis honest to the voters. It would also be a grave insult to the three other Republican candidates in the primary, all of whom would be slighted in the move. If voters don’t consider Size more qualified after reading The Oregonian’s story, they can express this at the polls by rejecting him in the primary or by backing a different candi date in the general election. If that candidate is a third-party representative, so much the better for diversity in our polit ical system. In an interview with The Reg ister-Guard mentioned in a Wednesday Guard article, Size more indicated he intends to continue to run. We are glad. If Sizemore has to exit the race because of personal or fi nancial reasons, we would sup port his move. But if he exits be cause the GOP demands it, we will be upset. As long as our current, quirky system continues, it should be voters and not political parties who decide what name appears on the ballot and on the gover nor’s nameplate. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses may be sent to ode@ oregon.uoregon.edu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Scientific research We were disappointed to read Jeff Shaw’s editorial (ODE, April 22). Perhaps we might clarify some of the things Shaw some how felt compelled to misrepre sent. First, Professor Matthew Gins berg never implied that scientists should act without a social con science. What he said was that it was inappropriate for scientists to usurp society’s conscience. Deci sions about the use of technology belong not to us but to society at large. Indeed, for society to abro gate its responsibility in this area would be to let a handful of scien tists dictate moral policy to the world. Our role as scientists — and we made it clear to Shaw that this is one of the most important things we do — is to inform society of the possible uses of the technolo gy we provide, the better to en able them to make well-informed decisions. As for CIRL’s involvement with military projects, the lab is currently looking at three specific application domains for our work. Two involve the manufac ture of aircraft and of fiber optic cables. One is military. This single military application involves helping AMC (the U.S. Air Mobility Command) plan its flights more efficiently. This is a strictly peacetime application; AMC is responsible for moving men and material around the world. Ii CIRL is successful, we will save AMC some 50 million gal lons of fuel annually. That’s $50 million in savings for American taxpayers. Perhaps more impor tantly, it’s 50 million gallons of gasoline that won’t get burned in Earth’s atmosphere — about as much as all of America spends commuting to and from work each day. Fundamentally, CIRL does not do “military research.” We do sci entific research. We pick the sci entific questions that we will in vestigate, not our sponsors. The military supports our work not because they expect to tell us what to work on, but because they expect to benefit from solu tions to the problems we have al ready decided to tackle. Unlike many private sources of research funding, the Department of De fense doesn’t demand exclusive rights to research results or try to inhibit their publication. Were the work conducted on military bases (as Michael Olson sug gests), neither of these would be the case, and both society and in dustry would suffer. Bottom line? The U.S. govern ment pumps $2.7 million into the University and Eugene economies. They get many times that amount back in efficiency savings, the environment gets a bit cleaner, and the technology developed makes American in dustry more competitive. It’s dif ficult for us to understand exactly what Shaw is so upset about. Brian Drabble David W. Etherington Matthew L. Ginsberg CIRL Educational employment Regarding the article about de velopmentally disabled students working at the Skylight Cafeteria (ODE, April 15): Oregon employment law pro vides for on-the-job training for special education students. The guidelines include the work be ing non-paid, no more than four hours a day and the job changing every three months. This may take the form of a change of work site or a change of work goals at the present site. Students in “work experience" have goals to this effect in their federally man dated individual education plan. This is a facet of their school education. The primary focus is to experience a variety of job tasks, as well as employment attributes (dependability, responsibility, in dependence). Employment for our students is exceedingly scarce after high school, thus work sites such as the Skylight are invalu able to our program to help pre pare them for this time. We are very appreciative of the many employers who assist our students in their training. Laura Krenk Teacher, Springfield High School More than money I am writing in response to and in support of Carlotta Hoffart’s letter (ODE, April 27). This letter was in itself a response to Chris Kenning’s article on disabled stu dents working in the EMU (ODE, April 15). While Hoffart offers an excellent argument through so cial and educational issues, I would like to provide a more business-like argument. Coming from the business school, I can vouch that most stu dents here expect to be paid for work and/or internships. It is usually a general mentality of the typical business student and many in this market economy of ours. Many graduating MBAs al ready have dollar signs in their eyes, as their starting salaries will average $40,000 in just a couple more months. Even so, I can attest to the few here who see work as much more than just making money. They do it for additional reasons; experi ence, fun and new friendships/ connections are definitely at the top of the list. They realize the im portance and value of the work they do and the environment they do it in. They see that it is much more than just a simple paycheck. Similarly, there are myriad benefits that disabled students obtain from their EMU work that are far more important than a paycheck. The sheer experience of their endeavors, at a reputable workplace, will be highly valued by future employers. Perhaps some readers out there are already saying that an MBA like me would say this just to exploit the free work I get from these students. Not the case. From a completely business per spective, for example, the budget of the University/EMU may sim ply not be enough to officially hire all of these students at the going rate of $6 an hour. And then, they would not even get the most valued part of all: experi ence. Work is much more than greenbacks at the end of the month. It can have social, eco nomic and spiritual benefits that far outweigh its economic value. Isn’t it time that we looked be yond the bottom line? Gonzalo dal Real Graduate Student
