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