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has withdrawn all of his personal dona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