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
Recent developments in the
ongoing Worker Rights
Consortium controversy
give us serious pause.
. Nike President and CEO Phil
1 Knight has resumed attending
\ University football games, and the
* media have portrayed Knight as a
» wounded but well-meaning donor
\ who is beginning to warm up to
# the University again, now that
University President Dave Frohn
‘ mayer is distancing the University
from the WRC.
What this represents is the
wholesale auction cf University
policy to private donors, and the
campus community should be up
set. The University doesn’t have
adequate funding from the state, so
it’s willing to sell its reputation
and its decisions to whoever can
pony up enough money. For
shame.
After the University agreed to
join the WRC earlier this year,
Knight pulled his $30 million
pledge to help fund the expansion
of Autzen Stadium. Knight said he
was upset that he hadn’t been con
sulted about the decision.
Frohnmayer repeatedly insisted
that Knight wasn’t trying to buy
control of University policy, but
that he had deserved a phone call
first. This is plain wrong — no one
voice, especially one with a lot of
money — should have an overrid
ing say in a public university’s de
cisions.
As soon as Knight pulled his
money, Frohnmayer began dis
tancing the University from the
WRC. Concerns were raised about
the group’s formation, operation
and ability to monitor working
conditions. The University
dragged its feet and refused to help
the WRC address the concerns that
were raised.
During the summer, Frohnmay
er joined the Fair Labor Associa
tion, another labor-monitoring
group established by the govern
ment in conjunction with the ap
parel industry. And recently, the
University’s legal counsel, at
Frohnmayer’s request, issued an
opinion that the University could
not pay its dues to the WRC be
]
•mmm ,.Mt.
imr ' mi imir
1
1
I
1
cause
the
group
was not of
ficially in
corporated,
and the group’s
structure ex
posed the
Uni
versi
ty to law
suits. The WRC
responded with a statement
that none of the University’s opin
ions are true.
Then the media got involved.
The Register-Guard ran an article
and a column about Phil Knight’s
return to Oregon football games,
saying now that the University has
backed away from the WRC,
Knight feels the relationship is be
ing repaired, and he might again
be able to give money to his alma
mater someday. Local television
stations have dramatically present
calls
the col
lege’s
largest pri
vate donor, a
wealthy busi
nessman whose
company
would be af
fected by
the labor
group. The
ed the situation as though the Uni
versity has already cut off the
WRC, and the Eugene Weekly’s re
cent cover story seemed to assume
the University’s pull-out is as good
as done.
If this saga were a novel, critics
would laugh at the plot for being
so obvious. How would the fic
tionalized version of events read?
A public college moves to join a la
bor group unfriendly to the appar
el industry. The college president
president ex
plains that the handwriting is on
the wall; students are protesting
and he needs to join the labor
group to appear that he’s doing the
right thing. The businessman says
to go ahead and join the group.
When you join, the businessman
says, I’ll pull my money and help
demonize the labor group in the
eyes of the community. The com
munity will pressure you to drop
your association, and as you pull
away, I’ll say that the relationship
s being repaired. When you final
y drop out of the group, the busi
lessman says, I’ll give my money
lack, and this will ensure that any
ittempt to rejoin the group will be
ioundly defeated. Sounds great,
;ays the college president.
Unfortunately, what has actually
lappened has occurred behind
dosed doors. Yet it seems as
hough it’s still too transparent,
rhanks to a stingy Oregon Legisla
te, the University doesn’t have
he money to fund its programs
ind expand its football facilities at
he same time. And with the recent
Dassage of Measures 88 and 7, the
hnding situation isn’t likely to get
letter any time soon. So the Uni
/ersity is relying on private dona
ions, which would be fine if they
were really charitable. But Knight
aas shown that this is not charita
ile giving; it’s a successful attempt
:o buy control.
If the Legislature wants the Uni
versity to be privately funded and
controlled, than it should sell the
college to the highest bidder.
Knight could then make all the de
cisions he wants about the cam
pus’ apparel manufacturing. Until
:hat happens, however, the Uni
versity is still a public institution.
[t should receive adequate funding
and make decisions based on
what’s right and what the whole
community wants — not on the fi
nancial impact to one private
donor.
With the current state of affairs,
the University and Frohnmayer
look like pawns to the rest of the
country, bought and sold by
Knight. The University of Califor
nia system hasn’t buckled to busi
ness pressures — they’ve paid
their dues to the WRC and are ac
tive in the organization. This Uni
versity, however, has earned its
nickname of Nike U.
Despite Frohnmayer’s protests
to the contrary, the campus com
munity should be embarrassed
that, for lack of public funding,
private donors can boss around the
University.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board. Responses
can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
Letters to the editor
The Electoral College: an unfair
antiquity
Despite the uncertainty and confusion
surrounding the outcome of the presidential
election, our democracy is strong and stable.
The League of Women Voters believes
wholeheartedly that the current legal steps
being taken to decide the outcome of the
2000 presidential election should be pur
sued to their final conclusion.
The League has advocated abolition of the
Electoral College since 1970. What more ev
idence do we need that it is time to bring our
elections into the 21st century?
The course of American history has been
an inexorable trend toward greater fairness,
uniformity and inclusiveness in our democ
racy. Yet, some systems for electing the most
important representative of the American
people are stuck in a time warp. We need a
technology upgrade.
The Electoral College, a curious vestige of
the 18th century, violates the principle of “one
person, one vote.” The time has come to eval
uate it. It’s time to ensure that the president of
the United States is directly elected by the
people he or she will represent. It’s time to
guarantee that, across the country, every per
son’s vote counts — and counts the same.
Karen Rikhoff
president of the League of Women Voters
of Lane County
Leadership positions open to anyone
The issue at hand in Emily Gust's article
(“Student workers demand pav-offs,” ODE,
Nov. 8) is that these students are victims of an
attempt to make student leadership positions
open to only those who can afford to be in
them. The current system allows leadership
positions to be accessible to anyone, regard
less of financial need.
Traditionally, most leaders in ASUO-rec
ognized programs are paid small stipends for
the many hours of hard work that they do.
Because these leaders put so much time into
their organizations, they may not have time
to'work other jobs. Those that-qualify for
work study, a federal financial aid program,
can use these jobs to earn their work study —
at almost no extra cost to the organizations.
These federal matching dollars create a
win/win situation for students and groups.
All of this work-study money is earmarked
for tuition and educational expenses. We are
committed to ensuring that student organi
zations and leadership positions are accessi
ble to everyone, regardless of financial sta
tus. We urge you to send a strong message to
the Student Senate that you are too.
C.J. Gabbe
ASUO student senator
Katie Howard
ASUO student senator
Preserving the wild
As one of millions of Americans who are
concerned about protecting what’s left of our
country’s wild heritage, I would like to di
rect attention to the Forest Service’s final
plan for roadless area management in our
national forests.
Monday, Nov. 13. it was released. It is the
most expansive preservation act since 1907,
when the Forest Service was created. The
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) would end commodity logging in
roadless areas, but would delay protections
for the Tongass Rainforest in Alaska — the
largest national forest — for four years. In
addition, the FEIS would include “steward
ship” activities, or in other words, getting
rid of fire threats by cutting certain areas. In
recent years, however, about two-thirds of
the timber volume cut from national forest
lands has been derived from stewardship,
and the Forest Service has been very lenient
with this definition.
Many are pleased to see progress in the
Forest Service plan, though it still falls short
of the full protection the American people
have asked for. The Clinton administration
now has 30 days, as of Monday, and a
unique opportunity to permanently protect
all 60 million acres of unprotected wilder
ness in our national forests.
Brad Schallert
freshman
journalism