Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 26, 2000)
Editor in chief: Laura Cadiz Editorial Editors: Bret Jacobson, Laura Lucas Newsroom: (541)346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu Wednesday April 26,2000 Volume 101, Issue 139 y Emerald Phil Knight is upset at the loss of trust and the University is upset at the loss of money—but it is not easy to say who is at fault Giovanni Salimena Emerald OK. The campus has been in con fusion for the last several days. Rumors have been flying. Ques tions have been asked. And now they are answered. There it is in big black letters: “Knight pulls all money.” More specifically, Nike CEO Phil Knight has withdrawn all of his personal dona tions to the University for now and for the foreseeable future. Reactions, anyone? It’s tricky. Everything from “that guy’s a jerk" to “those protesters cost us $30 mil lion” to “what does Nike have to hide?” to “donations shouldn’t equal corporate in fluence” is valid. In trying to make sense of what has happened, immediate reac tions have turned into a fight over whom to blame. The Worker Rights Consortium protest ers who stood their ground outside John son Hall two weeks ago aren’t at fault. They had some principles, and the Uni versity’s membership in the WRC should n’t necessarily have triggered Knight to pull his money. Knight isn’t at fault, either, though. He has a right to his feelings of betrayal and desire for a sense of loyalty and trust that his relationship with the University has traditionally held. To blame him for feel ing hurt is to deny the man his feelings, which are, by definition, valid. So what about University President Dave Frohnmayer? Well, he’s not at fault either. He’s in perhaps the most unenvi able position on Earth right now: Should he have contacted Knight before the WRC decision and either based his actions on a donor’s wishes or joined the WRC know ing we would be out millions of dollars? Should he have the students’ interests or the future of the University’s finances at heart? He has the task of figuring out whether those claims are mutually exclu sive. And if we can’t blame any of these peo ple, what’s left? The system. The reason we rely on corporate and private dona tions as fundamental financial strategy is because we flat out don’t get enough mon ey from our government. If this is truly a public university, then perhaps the best way to fund it is with public monies. But until the state of Oregon can cough up $30 million to renovate Autzen Stadium or build a new law center or endow more professorships, then can we really com plain about the presence of big donors? We live in a capitalist system that often views financial success as more important than democracy. Real democracy would be the people demanding that public edu cation be public. Real capitalism means that whoever has the money has the influ ence. To break that hold, we have to change the system. So right now, take time to understand everyone’s point of view. Some protesters and other WRC supporters think we will be fine or even better off without Knight’s money. And perhaps they are right, if we only consider the strings attached. But consider the power money has and the good it does. We need the law center. We even need the renovations to Autzen in order to bring in more money, be more successful in athletics, make future donors happy and make new money to feed into educational coffers. It’s not about where the money goes — it’s that we need the money at all. And from Knight’s perspective and even from those of other students who may be mad at the vocal protesters, Knight’s gifts are a privilege and not a right. We should be glad that even though our own state won’t take care of higher ed ucation we still have generous donors who can keep us stocked with the facili ties and services that keep us competitive. Again, take the time to inform yourself. Look at all the variables: the WRC, the Fair Labor Association, the future eco nomic concerns of the University, the feel ings of Knight, the courage of our Univer sity president. You won’t be surprised to find that there is no easy answer. There are just easy targets. This editorial represents the view of the Emerald ed itorial board. Responses may be sent to ode® oregon.uoregon.edu
