CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
E-MAIL:
ode@oregon. uoregon.edi
ADDRESS:
Oregon Daily Emerald
P.0.80X3159
Eugene, Oregon 97403
(inline EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode
Perspectives
.mmmmmmmmimmiigtmtm
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Teri Meeuwsen
IIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald
Coffee choice should reflect student’s interests
The criteria chosen by EMU Food
Services are too narrow and don’t
reflect taste and community concerns
>-' In the old days, kings were chosen by
the will of God and the law of succession (or
brutish wars with big swords). The method by
which the EMU is choosing a coffee vendor is de
cidedly less rational.
But there is one similarity between the two
processes — the will of the people is pretty much
irrelevant. EMU officials decided as much when
they opted to include only two students on the six
member coffee selection panel and to reject plans
for a student taste test.
This doesn’t make any sense. Students are the
ones who will be stuck drinking whatever brown
swill the EMU committee selects. If we make the
wrong choice, we have only ourselves to blame,
but if administrators make the wrong choice, it’s a
another indication that the needs of students are
not a factor in the way this University is run.
The controversy started when the EMU made
its initial coffee selection. Seattle Coffee Co. won
the bidding battle despite having neither the best
tasting coffee nor the best price. They did, how
ever, wow the selection committee with the best
presentation.
That’s right — your coffee drinking habits
ntil the EMU starts deliberating which
microbrewery it will contract with, cof
fee is king in the student union.
were determined by full-color overheads and
professionally trained marketing personnel. Too
bad for all those local companies that provide
better coffee and a boost to the Eugene commu
nity — they forgot to send someone to Harvard
to get an MBA.
Justifiably, this left a few people steamed. There
were a number of problems with the selection
process, both in the criteria used and the less-than
objective way the companies were evaluated.
So, the University’s Office of Business Affairs
tossed out the whole selection process and or
dered the EMU selection committee to have an
other go at it.
This also upset a few companies who felt there
was nothing wrong with the existing criteria,
just the outcome of the process. Given the mess
EMU Food Services made out of the whole
process, however, we think redoing the selection
process makes sense.
Unfortunately, the way the folks at food services
have proposed redoing it doesn’t make a lot of
sense. As we mentioned before, the new selection
process doesn’t include a taste test and involves a
minimal amount of student involvement.
Instead of fixing the flaws with the initial selec
tion criteria, the EMU has increased the likelihood
that the selection committee will make a bad coffee
choice. Worse, by delaying the final decision, the
committee has ensured minimal student protest by
making its announcement in the summer.
The EMU Food Services people are right to wor
ry about the objectivity and reliability of a taste
test, but that doesn't mean taste shouldn’t be a fac
tor. Apparently, even the selection committee
doesn’t intend to sample the product of the compa
nies they interview.
While taste has taken on a smaller role in the
selection process, that ever-vital interview has
become even more important as all applicants
will be invited to make formal presentations. As
before, the professional “polish” of a coffee ven
dor doesn’t seem closely tied to their ability to
provide a good product.
In their rush to reward companies who are
skilled at the business side of things, the commit
tee members are ignoring what ought to be more
significant factors. Not only has taste received little
emphasis in the latest criteria, but labor and envi
ronmental records are practically ignored. So, too,
is the company’s location — the University should
support local industry when possible.
This isn’t to say that cost and professionalism
shouldn’t be considered, but taste should be more
important and a company’s social conscience
should be weighed as well.
The University as a whole and EMU Food Ser
vices in particular seem too keen on rewarding com
panies that follow the typical business pattern when
they should be interested in helping companies re
ject that pattern by helping the community and the
planet and providing a high quality product.
Let s not name another king who is already used
to sitting on a throne.
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald ed
itorial board. Responses may he sent to
ode@oregon. uoregon .edu.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Court within power
There are just some days when I
fee! like thanking God for being an
atheist. First, Barry Williams. And
then, Spencer Hamlin’s brief protest
of a Constitution Court decision and
Mike Running’s call for impeach
ment. I’m not sure that Hamlin or
Running read the decisions. Having
lost my faith a long time ago, I just as
sume they haven’t.
If they had read the decisions,
they would realize that Ben Unger,
ASUO vice president, was cen
sured because he broke rules.
Unger tried to make the case that
unless he was acting “simultane
ously” for the elections board and
the Wortman/Cowling campaign,
he was not violating rules govern
ing conflict of interest. The court
made specific provisions in this
case, stating that assisting the elec
tions board with tasks such as
putting up a poll booth was not a
conflict of interest, but picking up
the fliers of an opposing campaign
or working in a poll booth (in this
case, asKing me to votej did pose a
conflict of interest.
To me, that ruling seems like a
logical conclusion based on the
facts. As far as the court overstep
ping its bounds in censuring Unger,
a quick reading of the ASUO Con
stitution leaves us with, “10.2: The
Constitution Court shall have
supreme and final authority on all
questions of interpretation of this
Constitution and any rules promul
gated under it, including elections
rules and complaints.” If Running
thinks that the Constitution gives
too broad of powers to the Consti
tution Court, perhaps he should
sponsor a ballot measure to change
the Constitution.
Finally, the court cannot make
rulings on events that were not re
ported as grievances. It is not the
police, and unless witnesses come
forward, the court’s hands are-tied.
In the case that alleged that poll
workers told people to vote no on
OSPIRG, neither grievant would or
could identify the poll workers re
sponsible. The elections board did
everything in its power to correct
the problem, but they could not
control every word that came out of
every poll worker’s mouth.
Selena Brewington
Grievant in Brewington et al. vs. Unger et al.
Christian confusion
Whew! Barry Williams certainly
trotted out a wealth of statistical data
(ODE, May 20) and from such schol
arly and/or unbiased publications as
Parade magazine and Christian
American, too, all apparently in an
effort to refute my claim that Chris
tianity in the United States is in de
cline. Yet rather than a declaration of
“victory over biblical morality,” my
letter to which he refers (ODE, May
11) was actually meant to be more of
a comment on the ethical myopia of
many who call themselves “Christ
ian,” particularly regarding the stub
born tenacity with which they cling
to their interpretation of the mythos
in the face of any and all conflicting
evidence and with little or no regard
for the sincere sentiments of others.
In fact, it was Gordon Melby (ODE,
May 4), and not I, who bemoaned
what he [Melby] seems to believe to
be the erosion of Christian (read: the
only true) morality — as indeed has
Williams himself over the years in
multitudinous encyclicals to we hea
then, all dutifully printed by the
ODE, The Register-Guard and others.
So ... schizoid doublethink or cyn
ical sophistry? Whatever the case,
these devout gentlemen simply can’t
have it both ways.
As for “[the] minnow with little
feet is about to be devoured by the gi
ant Christian fish,” what a dis
turbingly violent yet ironic image to
be made by someone professing to re
vere “the Prince of Peace.”
Incidentally, although I don't have
the exact counts myself, I can’t help
but notice that Williams failed to
mention the millions upon millions
of Americans who also believe in
UFOs, Elvis sightings and Ollie
North’s integrity.
Bill Smee
University Staff
Thumbs
TO PRESIDENT
CLINTON:
In a change of
policy, Clinton
agreed to sign on
to the global treaty
to eliminate land
mines. While this
is admirable, the
restrictions Clinton
put on U.S. adher
ence to the ban
were numerous
and troublesome
—-the use of
mines will be grad
ually ended over at
least eight years,
and the Army is
still working to de
velop an alterna
tive anti-personnel
device.
1/
TO THE FAILURE
OF MEASURE 53:
Once again,
Oregon voters
have indicated that
community is
unimportantto
them. In an act of
ignorance and self
ishness, Oregoni
ans rejected a pro
posal that would
have repealed pro
visions requiring^
majority turnout at
elections to pass
funding measures.
If we stop paving
roads, buying
books, repairing
streetlights and
educating children,
will people finally
accept that gov
ernment has a vital
role to play?
TO THE U S.
SUPREME
COURT:
The Court de
cided 6-3 that pub
lic television sta
tions are not
obligated to in
clude third-party
candidates
deemed "not
newsworthy” in
station-sponsored
debates. In other
words, your tax
dollars are now be
ing used to help
shape the outcome
of elections and
maintain the two
party system, all
without any choice
on your part.
Sounds like a pe
culiar sort of
democracy.