Thursday
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-maii: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
Bryan Dixon Emerald
SAINTS AND
PROFITS
ERIC PFEIFFER
In a city dedicated to bad taste, where the
term classic rock is used with sincerity and
trust fund kids denounce the “power elite,”
it’s time to embrace my own cliche.
Although I’ve never actually seen the show,
I’ve been convinced, wrangled, pushed and beat
en into writing a “Survivor”-themed column.
May you and your deity of choice have mercy
upon my soul.
As a trade-off, no Star Wars metaphors will be
used in the following rant.
Earlier this week, the Emerald editorial section
invited you to play along in a Survivor game for
student activists.
In my own heartfelt pitch to public-access tele
vision, I offer the “University Donor Survivor
Show,” hosted by the sergeant of smooth himself,
Duncan McDonald, University vice president for
public affairs & development.
McDonald enters stage left, cool martini in
hand. “Welcome to the show kids, we really have
some fabulous friends on the show tonight!”
Here are the rules:
Each year, University alumni, wealthy entrepre
neurs and those looking to max out their tax de
ductible donations compete for the title of top
donor. In return, each of the top-10 yearly contribu
tors will receive a place on the coveted donor wall.
However, unlike the original “Survivor” pro
gram, the contestants will not be allowed to par
ticipate in the elimination of our donor survivors.
This elimination game will be based solely on
cash, as any nearly-privatized institution of high
er education will tell you.
Furthermore, I’m offering a slight addition to
our game.
As each of the 10 finalists are eliminated from the
pool of competitors, the Oregon Legislature will
match the private donations to the University.
Imagine the possibilities: Donors can still voice
their opinions on new football uniform designs or
have new buildings dedicated to deceased rela
tives and friends. Meanwhile, those of us here
looking for an education can find one, at an af
fordable price. I mean, isn’t that what the admin
istration and their donor recruitment program re
ally want? We shouldn’t have to depend on
private donations to keep the University afloat.
Donors should be there for the extras a University
life can offer: recreation and entertainment.
OK, back to our game.
Don’t worry, this won’t just be a cake walk for
those much-maligned “wealthiest 1 percent,”
wielding their powerful influence. Student ac
tivists, waiting for the annual Spring Protests™, can
form human chains around Oregon Hall, blocking
the prospective donors from marking their contribu
tions. Humanitarian aid consisting of bandanas,
cell phones, hand drums and monthly allowances
from home will be shipped in from the Survival
Center—renamed the Survivor Center.
It will be a cycle of heated competition as busi
nessmen fight against their worst fear: being
matched by government funds and young people.
As a consolation for this radical foray into public
financing, top donors will receive appropriate ac
cess to University policy making. Let them sit in on
committee meetings and offer suggestions, but
leave the votes to the students. After all, in light of
recent campus battles, a little sensible collaboration
would help things run much more efficiently.
And here’s a twist to our little game: We’re not
even going to play.
Ultimately, there’s a much better solution than
knocking activists or donors off our imaginary is
land. Even if some activists don’t respect the
opinions of others, people do have a right to their
freedom of speech, including donors.
The problem isn’t donors giving substantial
amounts of money to the University, the problem
is a lack of public support that makes us depend
on donors for our funding. And the problem isn’t
student activists trying to tell the world how to
think, the problem is when no other voices rise
up to contest them.
Eric Pfeiffer is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His
views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He
can be reached at epfeiffe@gladstone.uoregon.edu.
Battle between WISTEC, UO leaves kids with no choices
The Emerald editorial board
is very disheartened to hear
that the Willamette Science
& Technology Center chose
to close its doors in response to the
Eugene City Council's decision re
garding expansion plans for
Autzen Stadium.
For those unfamiliar with the is
sue, suffice to say that after a tan
gled series of agreements between
the University, the city and WIS
TEC, the City Council's decision
allowed the University to build a
bus transit station on a parking lot
that WISTEC used to raise much
needed funds. (For further elabora
tion of the issue, search our online
archives, at
http://dailyemerald.com, for re
cent stories about WISTEC.)
WISTEC is a wonderful science
education museum — the only one
of its kind in the area — that serves
thousands of 3 to 10-year-olds
every year. Getting kids interested
in science early in life is fantastic.
By the same token, the University
and the community stand to bene
fit by expanding Autzen Stadium
and reducing traffic congestion
during Duck home games with the
bus station.
Our disappointment comes from
two sources. First, there were other
options for building a bus station
to serve Autzen Stadium that
would not have displaced the lot
used by WISTEC. The University
claimed those options wouldn't
work, but they should have tried
harder, and the City Council could
have done much more to make
other options work. WISTEC is a
tiny non-profit group struggling to
provide educational services to
Eugene's children, and the Univer
sity is a regional powerhouse, with
ample resources to find a way to
coexist with WISTEC.
Most of our frustration, howev
er, is with WISTEC, for choosing
to close down rather than find
other ways to meet itsTinaricial
needs. The University offered
more than $200,000 over the next
six years to cover WISTEC's oper
ating deficit from the loss of the
parking lot. We don’t think that
offer was the only, or perhaps
even the best, solution. But WIS
TEC officials claimed that figure
wasn't enough to support their
long-term needs.
However, six years is plenty of
time for a non-profit agency to
find alternate sources of funding.
And it should be mentioned that
the amount of money WISTEC
needs to cover the loss of the
parking lot is only $26,000 per
year. We believe WISTEC When it
says it has tried to raise money in
other ways, but we don't believe
that it is impossible to raise
$26,000 per year in private dona
tions and grants, or in state and
federal grants.
WISTEC's cause is noble and
right. The community in Eugene
supports what WISTEC does. The
museum should not have turned
its back on the community in the
same way that the City Council
turned its back on WISTEC. Tit for
tat doesn't serve kids.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board. Responses
can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.