Wednesday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P-O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
Committee outlines objectives for Center
President's Planning
Committee for the CSSC
•A* JLrnine the mission, scope and
activities of the proposed Center
for the Study of Social Change (still
a working title), we welcome the
opportunity to respond to some of
the concerns raised by Bret Jacob
son in his recent column. The pro
posed Center provides an opportu
nity for the University to bring its
particular strengths of academic re
search and public service to the so
ciety-wide challenges and oppor
tunities developing as our society
becomes increasingly more diverse
and multicultural.
While the specific contours of
the Center are still taking shape, a
simple premise guides its forma
tion: Namely, that it is time to move
beyond asking “Is diversity good or
bad?” and get to “So how do we
make it work?” While we all may
hold strikingly different view
points about the diversity we do
have, don't have or might have, the
Center's concern lies with how
communities can have conversa
tions about the social changes
without tearing themselves apart.
This means that the Center has the
potential to be a resource for every
body - those who support the fur
ther diversification of our campus,
state and nation as well as those
who have serious questions about
s the committee appointed
by University President
Dave Frohnmayer to deter
the social changes taking place.
The Center is NOT in the business
of what Jacobson refers to as pater
nalistic “social engineering,” i.e.,
determining for the University
community what diversity should
mean for us or look like on our cam
pus. Rather, the Center is in the
business of “social engagement.”
Its job is to provide the necessary
resources and services so that diffi
cult conversations regarding diver
sity and social change might take
place in a constructive fashion. By
“resources” and “services” we
mean a number of things:
• A center where individuals
can participate in cross-group dia
logues with others holding differ
ing viewpoints.
• A center where scholars and
students (undergraduate and
graduate) can acquire direct ex
perience assisting “communi
ties” (i.e., schools, businesses, \
neighborhoods) in dealing
with social change (i.e.,
changing demographics,
workforce composition, in
flux of unfamiliar newcom
ers into established neigh
borhoods).
• A center that draws
from its applied experi
ences in facilitating commu
nity dialogues to generate
scholarly research on the dy
namics and effects of social
change, effective cross-group
communication and conflict res
olution.
• A center where students, fac
ulty, staff, community members
and businesses can acquire the
skills necessary to facilitate diffi
cult dialogues in the workplace,
classroom, dorm room, etc.
• A center that hosts conferences
and other events geared towards
cross-group dialogues and commu
nity healing/outreach.
While Oregon may not be trail
blazing diversity trends in the way
that states such as California
and New York are,
we are uniquely positioned to
speak from our experiences as a
state actively grappling with what
these social changes mean for our
collective community. Other states
can identify with the opportuni
ties, challenges and growing
pains currently facing
Oregon. A
In sum, we have a unique oppor
tunity to create a model of pro-ac
tive leadership, scholarship and
outreach for others to emulate. We,
the committee, are very excited by
the possibilities the
Center holds.
Many challenges
lie ahead of us,
but so do many
rewards.
Thisopinion
was submitted
by The Presi
dent's Planning
Committee for
the Center for
the Study of
Social Change.
Letters to the editor
Different priorities
Bret Jacobson’s argument is contradictory.
On one hand he says that the University
should NOT prioritize values, while at the
same time he says University President Dave
Frohnmayer should make smoothing Phil
Knight's ruffled (duck?) feathers a priority.
Jacobson simply argues for a different set
of values — i.e. that the University should
promote corporate ties and big money ath
letics. This is not a conflict over "paternal
ism." It is a conflict over who owns the Uni
versity and who benefits from its offerings.
In my humble opinion, Jacobson is on the
wrong side.
Echo Fields
assistant professor of sociology
Ashland, Ore.
Verbose lexicon engenders migraine
I am not writing this letter to respond to
the issues in Bret Jacobson’s column (’’Pa
ternalistic ideals masquerade as diversity,’’
ODE, Oct. 23). I’m trying to figure out just
what, in fact, the column was about. Even
after reading it many times, I have only a
vague idea of what thoughts and ideas Ja
cobson is trying to express. I’m not sure if
it was Jacobson’s intention to leave the
reader with a pounding migraine, but I’m
sure I wasn’t the only one downing Costco
sized tablets of aspirin with a Jack Daniels
chaser by paragraph three.
Throughout the article, Jacobson throws
in adjectives and modifiers like they were
going out of style. I amused myself for
hours trying unsuccessfully to find the sub
ject and verb in each sentence. The sen
tence, “The propriety of a public institu
tion promoting politically driven social
engineering must be thoughtfully ques
tioned," is more like a Dr. Seuss-style nurs
ery rhyme than a complete thought. Clever,
but it’s no ‘‘fox in socks.” His word choice
is even more amazing than his sentence
structure. I can only assume the phrase
“stimulation of social consciences” came
from some out-of-date, new-age sociology
text.
Instead of a whole column of thesaurus
assisted rambling, couldn’t Jacobson have
just said that he doesn’t think it’s the Uni
versity’s place to prioritize diversity train
ing over more urgent issues? That would
have spared me and countless other read
ers the trouble of having to trudge through
ten paragraphs of overly-verbose garbage
masquerading as commentary.
Richard “Pete” R. Hunt
pre-journalism
FDA relinquished its credibility
I am an optimistic person, and I like to be
lieve the Food and Drug Administration is
achieving its function of protecting me and
the rest of the U.S. consumers.
However, pessimism is rising within me
with the FDA’s latest oversight. The recent
recalls of Taco Bell-brand taco shells are un
settling. The taco shells, made with geneti
cally engineered corn produced for animal
consumption only, were distributed and
sold to grocery stores nationwide.
The oblivion of the FDA is unnerving. An
environmental watchdog group found the
contaminated corn in the taco shells and re
vealed it to the FDA, which was unaware of
the whole matter.
Even more unnerving is the FDA’s report
that despite recalling the taco shells, the ge
netically modified corn infiltrated other
processed foods and cannot be tracked
down and recalled. This means that you and
I are not being protected by the FDA and are
quite conceivably eating products that have
the potential for harm.
Now I am left to wonder in what other ca
pacities the FDA is failing to protect me as a
consumer. With the FDA’s latest oversight, I
am troubled when I enter a grocery store. In
stead of my mouth salivating from the sights
and smells of food, my stomach turns in
knots.
The “FDA approved” sticker no longer
carries the clout it used to. I am not comfort
ed knowing the FDA approves this product
but am left to wonder what “FDA approved”
really means for my health.
Rod Yoder
undergraduate
undeclared
Steinem betrayed liberal causes
I was very disappointed by Gloria
Steinem on Wednesday night. I attended her
speech knowing that she would be stumping
for A1 Gore, but I didn’t expect her to spend
her words betraying her friend Ralph Nader.
She said nothing positive about Al Gore
other than he is pro-choice and has prom
ised to appoint liberal justices to the
Supreme Court. Rather, she chose to betray
a man whom she claims to respect and to in
still fear in young progressive voters who are
dying to vote for the best candidate in this
election.
Her tactic: the Supreme Court. Her claim:
Between two and four justices will be ap
pointed by the next president. The truth:
Only one justice, Ford-appointed John
Stevens, has stated he will step down for
sure in the next four years (www.supreme
courtus.gov/index.html).
Steinem did make a couple of good
points, but they were largely overshadowed
by her half-truths, spins and omissions. It
was all I could do to keep from screaming
out loud.
What upset me most, though, was that she
failed to mention that A1 Gore supports the
death penalty, NAFTA and WTO, economic
sanctions against Iraq, Cuba and others, the
war on drugs, the war in Bosnia, nuclear en
ergy, genetically modified and irradiated
foods, corporate welfare and our elitist polit
ical system. What are the effects of these
policies on women in the United States and
abroad, Ms. Steinem?
Please research the facts and don’t be led
blindly by fear.
Bradley Porterfield
graduate student
community and regional planning
CORRECTION
In the article “Students get better under
standing of principles,” [ODE, Oct. 31] key
speaker Debra Merskin was misidentified.
Merskin teaches advertising, as well as cours
es on gender and media, in the School of Jour
nalism and Communication. In addition, she
wrote the article "What Does One Look Like?,”
which was published in a book of essays edit
ed by Liz Bird.
In the same story, Christine Quail should
have been identified as a doctorate student in
the Communication and Society program
within the School of Journalism and Commu
nication, and as the president of the Graduate
Student Association.
To further clarify, a quote from a student in
attendance at the forum was attributed to
Quail, who actually said the forum would
serve as a “point to let people talk about is
sues that are of concern to journalism facul
ty.”
The Emerald regrets the errors.