Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Associate Editors: Rebecca Newell, Jeff Smith
Newsroom: (541)346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
Tuesday
July 25,2000
Volume 102, Issue 10
Emerald
Don'tpull the plug — WRC could turn out justfine
“Doctor, is the patient going to
live?”
“Well, we’re not sure. The patient
won’t allow us all the way in to find
out what’s wrong and we’re not al
lowed to use the ‘tools of the indus
try,’ so to speak. Plus, this patient’s fi
nancial status is questionable, so we
hesitate to even get involved.”
“But, doctor, what about the pa
tient’s heart and soul? What about
this patient’s dream to some day be
something? Sure, it’s looking bad
now, but doctor you can’t give up.
You must help.”
“Well, I can’t promise anything, but
the diagnosis looks bad. You don’t
happen to have $30 million to help
out with payments do you?”
OK, so that faux exchange is in
tended as a humorous assessment of
the Worker Rights Consortium, at
least as it stands on this University
campus. But there is a very serious
side to the ramifications caused by
the possibility of University officials
backpedaling out of the student-driv
en, labor-monifbring organization.
First, however, does the University,
especially administrators who are
paid to do just that, administrate,
have the right to question whether the
time, money and effort needed to get
it off the ground is going to be worth
while? Absolutely.
Are there legitimate concerns
about this fledgling group that has
snagged headlines around the coun
try for the past several months? Yes.
Sorry, but in this day and age, a budg
et of $295,000 doesn’t go very far, es
pecially in New York City, where the
WRC office is to be located. Besides,
approximately half of that is not even
in the group’s bank account yet, but
instead is just “hoped-for” funds in
the form of grants and gifts.
At the same time, student leaders
and WRC officials are correct in their
opinions that the organization’s goal
is a good one, with designs — admit
tedly long-range plans — on rooting
out unfair labor practices at overseas
apparel-industry factories. Even Uni
versity officials agree that the desired
goal of the WRC is an admirable one.
And one of the University’s condi
tions set at the beginning of this
whole drama, more representation on
the WRC governing board, was ad
dressed and changed at Thursday’s
meeting, if not necessarily to Presi
dent Dave Frohnmayer’s and Vice
President for Public Affairs Duncan
McDonald’s complete satisfaction.
And what about industry represen
tation on the WRC board? Almost
everyone involved with the WRC
says that is not going to happen, al
though the group’s treasurer, Marcella
David, does say that she welcomes
outreach and dialogue with the vari
ous apparel industries that eventually
will be monitored. The kind of rela
tionship that is established will be
crucial to the WRC’s success and
longevity, however, because gaining
access to the thousands of factories
will depend on industry’s willing
ness to open the doors.
Demonizing the corporations in
this case will not fly and shouldn’t be
expected to work. Direct representa
tion on the board isn’t necessary, but
corporations need to be included in
pertinent discussions surrounding
the monitoring process. We’re in the
year 2000 and there is little disagree
ment among all parties that sweat
shop conditions are unacceptable,
but finding ways to eliminate the last
vestiges of them needs to be a collabo
rative effort.
The University’s beef that WRC
board meetings should be open to the
public and the media is a very credi
ble one. We’re not sure how things
are done over on the East Coast, but
here in Oregon meetings are generally
open, as they should be.
Open the doors and let the sun
shine in, people.
So, how can this “patient” survive?
How does the WRC show that it can
become something?
With a little bit of patience.
Nobody knows what is going
through Frohnmayer’s mind concern
ing the future status of a WRC-UO
partnership except the president. His
comments to the media are far from
circuitous, however: He’s not im
pressed at this juncture. The Univer
sity Senate committee set up to regu
larly review the WRC reads the
newspapers and watches the TV
news, if they aren’t getting direct in
put from Frohnmayer himself.
So, the plug could be pulled before
next April, when the year commit
ment evaporates.
But, it shouldn’t be yanked just yet,
no matter how loudly the University
donors and alums howl or how “dis
organized” the organization may
seem. Give the WRC a chance to work
out its problems, if for no other reason
than to follow through on the commit
ment that was made on April 12.
Remember the last time someone
broke a commitment over this issue,
the scene wasn’t pretty.
This editorial represents the view of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses may be
sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
It’s time to lift the smoke screen from businesses
In industrial workplaces around
the nation, pollutants including tox
ins and carcinogens are banned —
unless they’re coming from the end of
a lit cigarette.
Smoking should be a cut and dry
issue. The hard
reality is that to
■■ bacco causes or
contributes to
I almost 25 per
v cent of all
« deaths in Ore
i gon, according
Kto an article
written last No
vember by
Grant Higgison,
Rebecca
Newell
a state Health ol
ficer with the
Oregon Health
Division. Every
one — with the exception of claims
from those who recently won large
settlements against the tobacco in
dustry — starts smoking with the
knowledge it’s unhealthy.
However, that’s the benefit of free
dom of choice — smokers have the
right to make the decision whether or
not to put a “death stick” in their
mouth. But do the rest of us?
If the Eugene City Council chooses
to put to vote an ordinance which
would ban smoking in all businesses
of two or more employees, Eugene
residents will have that choice.
Corvallis passed a “smoke-free
business” law in 1998, the same year
that the Oregon Health Division
kicked off it’s tobacco-use reduction
program. During the last two years,
Oregon tobacco consumption has
been reduced by 11 percent, and the
number of smokers fell by 6.4 per
cent, a total of 35,000 smokers.
That’s 500 million fewer cigarettes
sold each year with a future savings
of over $150 million — in Oregon
alone. Impressive numbers and a
clear indicator that the program and
efforts on the part of cities such as
Corvallis are working.
As Eugene faces an attack from the
anti-tobacco movement, City Council
members are turning to Corvallis as
an example for what worked and
what didn’t.
Though many agree that the idea of
smoke-free businesses is a good one.
criticism from bars has some claiming
mixed views. Some smokers and bar
owners argue that a part of bar tradi
tion is the smoky atmosphere, and
that bar patrons can choose not to vis
it the bar if that’s a problem.
How fair is that, considering 66
percent of bar patrons are non-smok
ers? Don’t they deserve the clean air?
After all, those with a drink can’t ex
actly “step outside” to get out of the
smoke in the way smokers can take a
“step outside” to allow the rest of us
to breathe uncontaminated air.
Besides the customers, it doesn’t
give the employees of businesses a
choice, especially the bartenders or
cocktail servers who are often burned
by carelessly held cigarettes, and who
are exposed to second-hand smoke.
Speaking of second-hand smoke,
what about the children in restau
rants who are exposed to this health
risk? According to the World Health
Organization, second-hand smoke se
riously damages the health of almost
half the world’s children. And we’re
worried about kids washing their
hands to prevent germs and illness?
However, old habits die hard. The
question of concern is: Will isolating
the one-third of bar patrons who do
smoke irreparably damage the bar
scene as we now know it?
According the OHD, no. Sixty-five
percent of Corvallis bar customers say
they like the bar experience better
now than when smoking was al
lowed. Of course, it doesn’t take a ge
nius to realize that those are likely the
65 percent of bar customers who
don’t smoke.
However, food and alcohol sales
have not been affected, and nine of 10
customers in the Corvallis area are
spending as much or more time in
bars as they did before the ordinance
went into effect.
The numbers are in and it’s about
common sense. If the Eugene ban is
put into effect — which it should be
— we’ll look back two years from
now and wonder how we ever
thought allowing smoking in public
places was “no big deal.”
Rebecca Newell is an associate editor for the
Emerald. Her views do not necessarily repre
sent those of the Emerald. She can be reached
at rnewell@gladstone.uoregon.edu.
Letters to the editor
Give it some time
Let me begin with some business
terminology, the lingo common to
both University administrators and
corporate donors who instruct them.
The University’s decision to join the
WRC was an investment. Like all in
vestments, time and careful guidance
are necessary for fruition. Sometimes
years are necessary before any profit
or benefit can be acquired.
Those who advocated for WRC
membership were very clear and out
spoken on the amount of time need
ed for the WRC to become effective.
This is why a five-year membership
was requested.
University administrators should
be well aware of the long-term nature
of projects involving large social
change. A faculty, staff, student and
administrative team has been work
ing to increase diversity on campus
for more than a year now without
success. The Code of Conduct Com
mittee, which voted unanimously to
adopt the WRC, took more than a
year to reach a decision. These tasks
are nothing compared to that of glob
al networking between human rights
groups and monitoring corporations
which do not want to be monitored.
President Frohnmayer’s four issues
are his alone. No democratic body at
the University has ever voted for
them to be enacted. Even then, one of
his issues, that of university repre
sentation, has already been addressed
at the WRC meeting. That seems like
rather quick work to me.
In the Register-Guard article (July
21), University Professor Lynn Kahle
referred to the WRC as being in an in
fant state. No argument here. The
question is: Should we nurture this
infant or abandon it?
Chad Sullivan
Music
Smoking ban an
infringement on rights
First, I’d like to say that I am not a
smoker, but the arguments for the
proposed ban on smoking in bars are
ridiculous.
The argument that second-hand
smoke is bad and no one should be
subjected to it is moot. Whether sec
ond-hand smoke is harmful is still
debated, but even if it (probably) is,
no one is forced to enter these estab
lishments. Even the employees at the
bars could find other jobs in this time
of record employment. Besides, they
had to know people smoked there
when they turned in their applica
tion.
The argument that people will
spend more in a non-smoking bar
does not stand up either. If it did,
there would be no need to enact a ban
— the bars would do it voluntarily.
The biggest argument against this
ban should be that these bars are pri
vate businesses open to adults, and it
should be left to the proprietors to de
cide what legal activities go on in
side. Taking away the freedoms of
people to do what is legal because a
group just doesn’t like it is un-Ameri
can.
Dustin Preuitt
Computer and
Information Science
Quoted
"It’s almost as
though now guys
will pick events to
play in and play
the Tiger-less tour
to have a chance to
win. The guy is
simply in a differ
ent league. ”
—Nick Faldo, a
professional goffer
who became one
of the many vic
tims of Tiger
Woods at last
weekend’s British
Open. The Oregon
ian, July 24.
“Poetry has the
power to show you
who you really
are.”
—Sarah Einowski,
a 17-year-old
Beaverton resident
and one of 42
young people who
are traveling
around the coun
try, teaching poet
ry wo ikshops in
conjunction with
the Seattle-based
Institute for Com
munity Leader
ship. The Oregon
ian.July 24.
“My friends, we
have a chance to
become Big Pub
lishing's worst
nightmare. Not
only are we going
glueless, look Ma,
no e-Book! No tire
some encryption!”
—Stephen King,
of his experiment
of posting the first
installment of a
new novel on-line
and asking readers
to pay through the
honor system. The
Oregonian, July
24.
“All Al Gore proves
when he claims
Texas has a budget
shortfall when it
really hasa$1.4
billion surplus is
that Al Gore him
self has a serious
shortfall when it
comes to telling
the truth.”
—George W. Bush,
presidential candi
date and Texas
governor in re
sponse to Gore’s
blasting his budget
policies. The Regis
ter Guard, July 22.