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