Tuesday
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
lLONE VOICE IN
■HE WOODS
BRET JACOBSON
This University is a lot like
a student double-majoring
in pre-med and theater
arts: It needs to pick one
direction and go with it.
But as it stands now, this school
is caught in a schizophrenic night
mare, unable to decide if its foun
dation is made of alumni donations
and infrastructure improvements
or a birthplace for socially con
scious activists. There is a dire need
for President Frohnmayer to offer a
clear vision of which avenue this
institution will travel, or step aside
for a new leader to do the job.
The symptoms of the schizophre
nia are clear.
On the one hand, the irritating
rash caused by the constant chaffing
of local activists has been nagging us
since the early 1960s and shows lit
tle signs of going away. If left
unchecked, this problem will lead to
a socially conscious group of stu
dents recognized widely for their
convictions and dilapidated facili
ties.
On the other diseased hand,
there’s the recent fundraising records
set for such projects as the law
school, the business school expan
sion and renovation and Autzen Sta
dium. Long term, this problem can
manifest itself in a more attractive
campus with better scholastic facili
ties and a better athletic program, but
the University runs the risk of a
"sell-out” reputation.
Clearly, the best course of action
would be to further raise funds and
improve the infrastructure of the
campus. Better facilities make it
easier to attract better professors,
which obviously leads to a better
overall academic environment.
And as the quality of education
grows, so too does the reputation of
the school, further increasing the
value of an Oregon graduate.
While some may claim an ac
tivist campus offers a good educa
tional atmosphere by examining so
cial issues, it is the nation’s top tier
law and business and journalism
schools, etc., that lead to the best ed
ucation value for alumni. After all,
when was the last time Wall Street or
Madison Avenue listed Reed College
as their primary recruiting ground?
Leaving the problem alone to fes
ter and to balance itself out is not an
acceptable option. The tension be
tween the very vocal minority of ac
tivist students and the silent majority
of students who believe there is a
definite need for better facilities and
donor contributions is real and will
not mend itself. Until the tension is
dissolved, however, no progress can
be made in either direction.
And while this little bit of tension
can be survivable, the University
cannot achieve great standing as ei
ther a bastion of social consciousness
or as a modern uni
versity with impres
sive facilities and im
peccable educational
opportunities.
It would be easy to
simply suppose that
this tension has been
a bother for the last
four decades and is
just a fact of life that
must be taken as cos
mic truth. After all,
Eugene is probably
still the world’s
leader in per capita
hippie population,
and it wouldn’t be a
school year without
an unseemly, boister
ous demonstration in
the name of some an
imal rights, ecologi
cal or humanitarian
That position,
however, is utterly
and nonsensically
defeatist. If this insti
tution had a leader
with a clear vision
for the future, this
unique limbo that is
the school’s atmos
phere could be trans
formed into a pro
ductive, harmonious university.
This campus can be a good place
for future leaders of the real world
to grow and thrive, but that will
take a strong will from the school’s
administration.
i
Do we want money, stature and
improved education, or the pride of
a socially conscious body? In the
name of progress and peace, maybe
it’s time to just pick the money and
move on so that the University can
achieve greatness sooner rather
than later. Solve the schizophrenia
and pick pre-med.
Bret Jacobson is a columnist for the Ore
gon Daily Emerald. His views do not neces
sarily represent those of the Emerald.
How will the popular vote turn out today?
The presidential race is always close; since 1824, the winner of the
presidency has averaged only 55 percent of the popular vote.
Total popular votes cast in 1824, the first year recorded: 262,284
The number of popular votes cast reached 1 million in 1828; in 1888, it hit
10 million; it totaled 25 million in 1920; in 1952, it had topped 50 million.
The U.S. population reached 100 million in 1920, but the popular vote
didn't hit 100 million until 1992. Then, in 1996, it slipped back below 100
million.
Number of times the loser of the presidential race has received more votes
than the winner: 2, in 1824 and in 1876
Year the widest margin was recorded between the winner and loser of the
presidency: 1860, when Abraham Lincoln won with 69 percent of the
popular vote. This was only the second time the Republicans had ever run
a candidate for president.
Notable third party runs:
In 1892, People's Party candidate James Weaver receives more than a
million votes, garnering 9 percent of the total popularvote.
In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, runningfor the Progressive Party, and
William H.Taft, running for the Republican Party, tied for runner-up with
26 percent of the popular vote each. Democrat Woodrow Wilson won with
48 percent of the popular vote.
In 1924, Progressive Party candidate Robert M. Lafollette took 17 percent
of the popular vote.
In 1932, Socialist Party candidate Norman Thomas won 2 percent of the
popularvote.
The 1948 election saw two third-party candidates, each of whom received
2.5 percent of the popular vote: State's Rights Party candidate Strom
Thurmond (yes, he's a senator now) and Progressive Party candidate
Henry A. Wallace.
In 1968, American Independent Party candidate George C. Wallace re
ceived 14 percent of the popularvote, leaving Richard Nixon and Hubert
Humphrey in a statistical dead heat.
In 1992, Independent candidate H. Ross Perot received more than 19
million votes, or 19 percent of the popular vote, and some pundits believe
that 19 percent gave Bill Clinton the presidency.
Then in 1996, Perot ran again on the Reform Party ticket, but won only 9
percent of the popular vote.
Source: www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/ecfront.html
Voter's nationwide face bis decisions
he latest CNN/USA Today/ Gallup presidential
poll is in, showing Texas Gov. George Bush lead
| ing Vice President A1 Gore 47 percent to 45 per
-JL cent, with Ralph Nader at 4 percent. Almost 3
percent of the 2,386 likely voters contacted were still
undecided as of Sunday night.
With the news, Republicans are no doubt feeling a tad
confident, Democrats are a bit bummed and Naderites
are hoping the Election Fairy brings an extra 1 percent
for federal funding. (Libertarian, Socialist, Constitution
and Reform Party backers have to wait four more years
for their voice to make a measurable impact.)
Of course, the numbers don’t mean squat, and not
solely because of the +/- 2 percent margin of error. The
numbers are irrelevant because people across the coun
try still need to, as Rev. Jesse Jackson told hundreds of
University students last week, “take [their] souls to the
polls.”
In Oregon, with its vote-by-mail system, tens of thou
sands people have already voted and are waiting to see
if their choices won. Yet, when it comes to voting, the
theme should mimic that oft-used sports phrase: “It’s not
whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.” In
America, playing the game means voting, and the right
to vote ought to be honored with the act of actually vot
ing.
So, if you haven't already done so, take out your vot
ers’ pamphlets, get your ballot ready, find a poking im
plement and punch away. Then tonight, you can watch
with true interest as the results roll in. And if local issues
don’t quite quench your political thirst, keep an eye on
these issues from other states:
• In Alaska, voters will be considering Proposition 5,
which would legalize marijuana ownership, use and dis
tribution for people age 18 and older. In addition, it
would: automatically release people convicted in state
court of marijuana crimes; destroy all criminal records of
marijuana activities; set up an advisory panel to consider
paying restitution to those convicted of marijuana
crimes; allow prosecution of those driving under the in
fluence of marijuana; ban mandatory marijuana testing
and prohibit Alaska from aiding federal agencies in mar
ijuana prosecutions. That’s a whole bale of marijuana
legislation.
• California is also considering drug legislation, but
this time the supporters of medical marijuana have
moved on to drug treatment. Instead of putting first- and
second-time drug offenders in jail, Proposition 36 would
provide probation and drug treatment. Martin Sheen,
who has been arrested for more liberal causes than all of
Eugene’s anarchists put together, has been a harsh critic
of the proposition, saying that his son Charlie Sheen
needed incarceration to straighten up.
• Nebraska’s Initiative 416 would not only amend that
state’s constitution to recognize a marriage as strictly be
tween one man and one woman, but would also invali
date same-sex unions or domestic partnerships per
formed in any other state. Any couples who’ve received
a same-sex union in Vermont might want to watch the
results before moving to Nebraska.
• Massachusetts’s Question 5 would establish a
statewide single-payer health care system, something
Hillary Clinton couldn’t achieve nationally. Layers of
HMO administration bureaucracy would be eliminated,
health decisions would made by doctors and nurses, and
the extra money would be used to provide health care for
every Massachusetts citizen.
The race for control of the U.S. Congress should also
be entertaining. If you believe the campaigns for presi
dent, every branch of the government is up for grabs this
year, and it will all be decided, more or less, today.
An editorial in Saturday’s edition of The New York
Times by Verlyn Klinkenborg gives another reason why
today is so important:
“An ideal republic forms in the heads of some voters.
Others vote their pocketbooks, their prejudices. Some of
us vote the way our parents did, the ways we wish our
children might. We vote on single interests and on ab
stract principles, for reasons that are sometimes cogent,
sometimes not. Even if there were no more pressing rea
sons to vote, there is always the one inviolable reason,
which is to preserve the possibility of voting.”
The Emerald editorial board can be reached at ode@oregon.uOre
gon.edu