Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 26, 1999)
NEWSROOM: (541)346-5511 E-MAIL ode@oregon uoregon.edu ON-LINE EDITION: www.dailyemerald.com EDITOR IN CHIEF Ryan Frank EDITORIAL EDITORS Kameron Cole Stefanie Knowlton Eye of the Beholder? Beauty may be only skin-deep, but it’s also an integral part of our future T” Tlth our entry into % V / the real world ap proaching, we’re ▼ ▼ all looking to gain the same things before graduation: practical skills, a solid liberal arts education and a certain indepen dence. College is meant to give us these things—and it can — but it s dishearten ing to know that one im portant weapon in the fight for personal and professional success can only be obtained through sheer luck of the gene pool. It’s how we look. No matter how much knowledge we soak in, how sparkling Giovanni SaHmena/F.merald a personality we have or how skilled we are at our chosen career, it’s the shape of our face or the dimensions of our body that can give us what we want. Looks do matter. Recent studies have shown that good-looking people make more money for themselves and their businesses than their average or un comely colleagues. They’re consid Opinion Ashley Bach erea more intelligent and healthy by peers and receive lighter jail sentences. They, according to the studies, have better relationships with their parents and teachers, more friends and more fre quent and better sex with more beautiful partners. Scary, isn’t it? Ide ally, we d live m a world that cares little about external appearances and makes judgments based on character and ability. But instead, in addition to race, age, gender and sexual prejudices, we have to deal with what Ralph Nader calls “the only discrimination that's complete ly ignored in this country” — the canonization of the beautiful and the damning of the ugly. But are things really this way? Are we really doomed to feel the effects of our looks — good or bad — for the rest of our lives? Unfortunate ly, yes, although factors such as I ability, ambition and personality V surely play larger roles. Last ) time I checked, Bill Gates and Janet Reno weren’t exactly hot ties. But if you’re out looking for the best job or the best mate, your physi cal features could guarantee your success. Keeping your weight down, having good hair and wearing nice clothes will help, of course, but only to a point. Eventually, you’re stuck with what you were bom with. Some people may say that the ad vantages of beautiful people are ob vious. Of course they have the most sex. Of course they have the most friends. Our society has always been based on beauty, especially with women, so what’s new? I may be an optimist, but I’d like to think we have higher standards. I’d like to think that we’ll get our fu ture jobs based on ability. And that in dating, finding somebody special isn’t about good looks, but about finding a compatible equal, both physically and mentally. Science and personal experience, however, seem to prove me wrong. This argument still begs the eter nal question: Just what is good look ing? If we are to assume our liveli hood depends in part on our appearance, how do we judge our selves? How do we know how we measure up? One answer, apparently, is scien tific. In the most subjective of areas, researchers have declared universal truth, regardless of culture or geog raphy. For both sexes, the most at tractive faces and bodies are sym metrical, they say. Some scientists say this is Darwinian, showing that we and our ancestors “play it safe” by choosing mates without physical deformities. More specifically, men with above-average height, prominent cheekbones, a large jaw, muscular torso, imposing brow and a waist hip ratio of .9 are considered attrac tive, according to one study. Good looking women have large eyes, a small nose, full lips, unblemished skin and a waist-hip ratio of .7. Waist-hip ratio? This all seems patently ridiculous, but people are getting paid to discover these things. I agree there’s a level of physical at tractiveness that is universal, that everybody will agree on. But the gray area between universal and ugly is virtually infinite. In the end, maybe we shouldn’t let science dictate that most basic of judgments or what we make of our selves. Perhaps those of us who aren’t physically blessed can com pensate for our weakness. And those of us with more striking fea tures can develop abilities more valuable than our exterior. But I’m not confident this will happen, despite my most idealistic tendencies. Until the homely rule the Earth, when we look into a mir ror, we may very well be looking into a crystal ball. Ashley Bach is a columnist for the Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the newspaper. Letters to the Editor A plea for tolerance I am a student who happens to be multiracial. A student in a classroom targeted me, telling me I had “no right” to speak, saying “You aren’t American,” and "You people think you need to be on a pedestal above all those other mi nority people, but you’re just like them.” 1 was singled out because of the color of my skin and one of my ethnicities, Tlingit (Alaskan Na tive). I recently watched a profes sor who teaches a multicultural class being disrespected because he was telling a story that an indi vidual didn’t believe was true. I have seen messages to professors with threats and terrible things said about “minority” people in general. Incidents like this happen to professors and students of color often. I find it scary because these things happen in multicultural courses such as Native American literature or ethnic studies. Racial intimidation is not as uncommon as you think. We need to realize that racism is thriving and breath ing here at our own university. We need to do something, and we need to speak out against it. I am not afraid to speak, and I hope my fellow students will also not be afraid. Students at the University, learn about people different from you. Respect diversity in the individu als you meet. Try to understand where they are coming from. Maybe you’ll learn more about yourself at the same time. Rachelle Pavao Sociology and ethnic studies Subjective news I have just finished reading the last Oregon Daily Emerald my hands will ever allow me to pick up. I have become so unbelievably fed up with the pathetic so-called journalism. After more than three years as a reader, I just cannot al low my intelligence to be insulted anymore. First, your paper must be taking notes from the Republican Con gress on how to completely ignore the public you represent. Every single day I read the Letters to the Editor and there is almost always a letter telling you to cover more important issues. Today, (ODE, Feb. 23), somebody clearly illus trated that you missed a very im portant issue: child care. Brian Marlowe, who wrote the letter, I ask you to stop reading the Emer ald. Day after day this paper contin uously writes perspectives that correlate solely with Commentator viewpoints: “Getting cozy with Nike?” (ODE, Feb. 23). Who are you to suggest that the most fer vent adversary of Nike, the Stu dent Insurgent, could possibly work for Nike? I suggest this University and its media learn a lesson from the Clinton trial. The public is tired of partisan BS. We want subjective news!!!!!! And not just five pages of sports. Oh yeah, stop fighting about the election and just let us, the student body, the most impor tant part of any democratic body, decide what should be done. Your former reader, John Adamson International studies