CONTACTING US NEWSROOM: ADDRESS: (541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald E-MAIL: P.O. BOX3159 ode@oregon. uoregon.edu Eugene, Oregon 97403 ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/-ode EDITOR IN CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Teri Meeuwsen AR EMERALD EDITORIAL a recent move by tbe govenor has increased the destructive forces of welfare reform It just doesn’t make any sense. Admittedly, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber has long played the role of maverick, often diverging from party lines to act as a populist. And Oregon has long treasured its position outside of the political norms, with a high number of in dependent voters and a record of unique approaches to national problems — Ore gon’s health care plan, the bottle bill and a high minimum wage. Nevertheless, none of that would have suggested that Kitzhaber would sell out the working poor in 23 Oregon counties by re fusing to apply for a waiver that would have guaranteed them continued food stamps, Kitzhaber’s record as governor is certain ly not unimpeachable, and this one act doesn’t suggest he should or shouldn’t be reelected in November. Overall, however, he has tended to support the individual over the interests of federal regulators or state business owners. By refusing the request of Oregon politi cians, anti-hunger advocates and poor in dividuals to apply for extended benefits, however, Kitzhaber has insanely attempt ed to preserve the state’s anti-welfare im age at the cost of hungry people’s health and survival. The issue hinges upon the governor’s de cision to not request extension of federal food stamps for unemployed recipients in 23 counties with high unemployment — counties considered to have a “labor sur plus.” As explained by Harry Esteve in the May 12 Register-Guard, unemployed single adults in areas not receiving a waiver lost food stamps on April 1. By not applying foi the extended waiver, Kitzhaber has doomed the entire state to that fate. In a story in a recent issue of The Nation, Oregonian columnist David Sarasohn de tailed the heavy burden welfare reform has already placed upon regional food banks. According to Sarasohn, as more people are pushed off of federal aid, food-providing charities are worried they will be unable to find even minimal nourishment for thousands of needy individuals and families. Kitzhaber has placed rural, unem ployed Oregonians who cannot find ade quate work and therefore cannot afford to eat on top of that already expanding bur den. Because the people in question are young and single, they will receive low pri ority with charities and are therefore that much more likely to starve. Kitzhaber’s move is part of a growing trend of administrators and politicians to place the blame for poverty on the poor and to drive individuals and families off welfare and into the work force, often with disastrous results. His move doesn’t make sense at either a practical or a political lev el. Politically, Kitzhaber is seizing the ground of right-wing politicians, such as Bill Sizemore, who oppose any govern ment action that doesn't help big business. Voters who suddenly vote for Kitzhaber be cause of this one move. Instead, those vot ers who believe in helping workers and providing reasonable and fair government aid for those who truly need it are likely to become frustrated with Kitzhaber, much the way radical Democrats were furious with President Clinton after he signed the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. At a practical level, the anti-welfare poli cy trend makes little sense. Food stamps and other welfare services account for a tiny percentage of federal expenditures — the military budget eclipses spending on major welfare programs dozens of times over. Moreover, in saturated labor markets such as the ones for which Kitzhaber de clined to request a waiver, forcing the poor to work does little to help the individual or the community. The food stamp re cipients in this case are single, but J01 welfare reform also targets single W/ parents and families, for whom work is all but impossible. Because there is no federal provision for childcare, parents driven from the dole face an impossible choice — go to work at a job that doesn't provide adequate money to fund childcare and provide food and hous ing for a family (especially once you con sider that employed parents are almost never eligible for welfare bene- %, fits), or stay at home and lose federal bene fits because of welfare “reform.” There is nothing wrong with the premise that all able-bodied adults ought to be able to find jobs. There is something wrong with the approach that has been taken to work by policy reformers in recent years. Raising a child is d JUU 1UI IllcUiy — the same family values advo cates are the ones pushing parents out of the home. Ad ditional ly, the / sort of work available for the poor // is not the comfortable administra tion carried out by policy-makers; it is difficult labor that often doesn’t even pay a living wage. Until childcare is provided by the feder al government, wages are high enough to live on and better job opportunities are available, denying workers food stamps and other welfare benefits is a destructive Cractice. Kitzhaber should know this, and is apparent denial of the reality of poverty in much of Oregon is ;r ingly that much more frustrating. Federal money for the poor is rare enough these days. It’s too bad that in Ore gon something even rarer has turned up — a governor too strong willed to take the money when it is available. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial hoard. Responses may be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu. Community qualifications David Sarasohn wrote in The Oregonian on April 14 a convincing editorial about the unintended consequences of the University of California’s repeal of affirmative ac tion as one criteria for selecting new students. In a very short, hard-hitting statement, he describes the tremendous damage done to the enrollment mix brought about by re lying upon "academic merit,” i.e. SAT scores, as the sin gle most important criterion for judging high school grad uates’ qualification to enter the University. He challenges the institution’s continuing place as the state’s “universi ty” when it defaults to serve only the state’s intellectual elite and brings reality to his argument by citing a short history of the two key players in the Bakke decision, a re verse discrimination lawsuit wherein Bakke, a white stu dent, displaced a black student at UC Davis. Both went on to earn medical degrees. Mr. Bakke is now employed in Wisconsin as a medical researcher, while the black stu dent practices hands-on medicine in the Watts neighbor hood of Los Angeles County. Using SAT scores as the sole criteria for entrance would in all likelihood deny that black student entrance to the University today. Mr. Sara sohn leaves his reader with the obvious conclusion that wherever society requires a license to serve, i.e. a college education, it needs to make sure that the entrance qualifi cations fit the needs of the profession and the entire com munity and not simply the inappropriate attention to an intellectual ideal. Kenneth Jones Eugene Progressive Oregon I spent the first 18 years of my life in Eugene and would have agreed with your assessment of Oregon as more or less conservative for most of those 18 years. Spending the last two years in Colorado, however, has changed my mind completely. The Oregon Health Plan, the Death with LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dignity Act, Ron Wyden and Peter DeFazio, no self-serve and no sales tax have given us a reputation, at least in Col orado, as being a liberal state. If you want more proof, compare Oregon to the states around it. Washington has Slade Gordon, one of the most conservative congressmen around. Idaho has LAPD retirees. California has Prop 187. Utah has Orrin Hatch. I think Oregon has plenty of points of pride, and it’s about time we started recognizing it. Mike Myers Denver Take back the night In a society where one in three women will be raped in their lifetime, something must change. In a society where rape myths are still firmly believed, there is a need for ed ucation. In a society where a woman is raped every six minutes, there is a need for action. Rape is any unwanted sexual intercourse. Rape is about power and violence. A survivor is never at fault for a rape; in rape the fault lies only with the rapist. Between 80 per cent and 88 percent of rapes are date and acquaintance rape. Date and acquaintance rape are also violence, not a difference of opinion. No always means no, and silence does not equal consent. We must all educate ourselves about rape and sexual assault and then take action to bring about change. For, in one way or another, sexual violence touches all of us. May is Sexual Assault Awareness Month — 31 days in which we can focus our efforts on sexual-assault educa tion, prevention, awareness and activism. The Take Back the Night march takes place during this month. 1998 is the 20th anniversary of the march, which has come to sym bolize women protesting all forms of oppression, rape and sexual assault in particular. Take Back the Night is a time for women to walk through the streets of Eugene — one night without fear—protesting violence and making their voices heard. Take Back the Night, on Thursday, begins at 8 p.m. at the EMU Amphitheater with a rally and then a march to the East Park Block at 8th Avenue and Oak Street, where there will be a speak-out. To the women of Eugene: Please come and share your voices. Rebecca Farmer English/Women's Studies ‘Seinfeld’ defense On behalf of “Seinfeld” fans everywhere, I would like to respond to Kameron Cole’s column on the show (ODE, May 13). Never before have I witnessed such an embar rassing display of unsubstantiated generalizations. Her message is clear: We “Seinfeld” fans are mindless con sumers of “pop culture,” with nothing better to do than watch a “show about nothing.” And it is apparent that Cole views herself above the popular culture. That is fine. Nobody is required to like “Seinfeld.” But I suggest she watch the show before she offers her insight. By representing all of pop culture in a single stroke, she denies the consumer of pop the intelligence required to distinguish quality programming from poor programing. Am I really “defined by something as trivial as a television series”? 1 am not, but I would expect such rash judgments from someone who, with a straight face, can say that the 90s — an entire decade — are “a decade about nothing.” Nothing? Cole states that pop culture “is not representative of a majority of people.” This is not news. The American peo ple are too diverse, too complex and too real to be “repre sented” on television. Cole’s notion of a ’90s “homoge nization is a myth. “Seinfeld” is popular precisely because it does not pretend to represent the higher moral virtues Cole seems to expect from television. It’s enter tainment. Too bad Cole has missed the fun. Damon Paveglio English