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