Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 6, 2001)
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 a LONE VOICE vs. k IN THE K^awooDs -A- get a handle on when it comes to higher edu cation these days. The fren zied pace of change in the ex terior world often makes lessons inside the walls of the academy obsolete just as they are being typeset in texts, leaving a lot to be de sired in a tremendously ex pensive education. Only by modernizing institutional capital—including instruc tors —can higher education be reformed enough to be rel evant and fulfilling to its pri mary customers, students. The evidence is over whelming and scarcely needs much support given that the education system is n’t all it can or should be. But for quick reference, an article in last Wednesday’s Emerald (“High schools’ lesson plans scrutinized,” ODE, Jan. 31) focused on the effort to better educate incoming high school students to be ready for collegiate academic de mands. According to the arti cle, a disturbing 40 percent of all students have to take re medial classes during their tenure here, which means they are behind in some form or another in their greater ed ucation effort. But not all problems can be laid at the feet of lower level public schools. Once students arrive at the Univer sity, they are forced into ridiculously rigid regions of study without being taught the basics of logic and ethics classically associated with a good liberal arts degree. (lie problems are clear, but the solu tions are difficult to One of the main problems facing students is that there is no longer the expectation that people should be knowl edgeable in logic and ethics. The ability to reason out the best and most appropriate decision befitting a given sit uation is surely appropriate for a generation that will have to face questions rang ing from human genetic engi neering and cloning to mod ernized warfare and our role as a superpower. But it is not even so much a problem that students aren’t taught these fundamental skills as it is worrisome that the bureaucracy in place is entrenched and unwilling to change. While this University will never be able to compete with Ivy League schools such as Harvard and Princeton, there is no excuse to not proactively seek institution wide changes. It should be in cumbent on smaller institu tions such as this one to inves tigate new methods of in struction that help students retain more information while at the same time teach ing them how to understand issues in a complex and dy namic environment. The rigidity of study is a problem that stems from a bureaucracy’s inability to nimbly meet the needs of to day’s demanding and dy namic world that changes as fast as the technology that drives it. If one has ever wit nessed the process for change within a large institu tion, especially one with tenure safety for much of its human capital, it is obvious that there is a terrifying re sistance to much-needed change. A lack of change causes several problems that pre vent University students from attaining the highest quality education possible. As education expands to the Web and other schools ex periment with varying meth ods of study, the University fights any change that does n’t include worker rights in foreign nations. That means our students are less compet itive and less able to handle the demands of a changing world. One of the main resisting forces to changing the educa tional process is the tenured nature of many professors. Guaranteed jobs allow pro fessors to sit in an ivory tow er and snipe at the school ad ministration, governmental initiatives and social move ments that don’t quite match their tastes, all without hav ing to worry about develop ing any new ideas of their own. And of course, there is almost no chance of remov ing the tenure model any time soon, because the peo ple who help decide matters like that thrive on—that’s right, tenure. But self-interested motives such as the tenure mentality and overall bureaucratic in ability to change only dooms this school to ever-increasing mediocrity. Sure, there’s an innovation in computer sci ence one year or the naming of a new worm species an other year, but students will continue to come to the Uni versity and receive a decent but uninspired education that would leave classical ed ucators shaking their heads in despair. Bret Jacobson is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at bjacobso@gladstone.uoregon.edu. Pro-life ad propaganda skewed scientific truth Guest Commentary Heather lllllpiili ill. i*i ifirthrit 1, I It 1 With the inauguration of unabashedly anti-choice President George W. Bush and the recent appointment of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a woman’s right to choose is in serious jeopardy. Last Wednes day’s insert in the Emerald, funded by the pro-life group “Human Life Alliance,” is just the beginning of a stream of anti-choice prop aganda which will be financially supple mented by this new administration. The insert was not only emotionally ma nipulative, but it also cited many “facts” which are extremely questionable. The great est misrepresentation was the claim that a link exists between abortion and breast can cer. An article in the insert by Dr. Joel Brind, deceptively accompanied by a photo of a friendly-looking female physician, asserted an increased breast cancer risk of 50 percent if an abortion is performed before the first live birth and claimed that, if multiple abor tions are performed, the risk can increase up to 100 percent. The findings are backed up with a long medical explanation permeated with very impressive medical jargon. What is omitted is the size of the sample set or any information regarding the scientif ic validity of the study. Many studies have been done surrounding this controversial hy pothesis, but the most comprehensive was published by the New England Journal of Medicine in January 1997. A group of scien tists in Denmark analyzed the medical histo ries of more than 1.5 million women and concluded that there is no increased risk of breast cancer for women who have had abor tions. In addition, the January 2000 issue of Epidemiology also cites a recent study de nouncing the claim. The Human Life Al liance’s presentation of one small and scien tifically questionable study as fact is an at tempt to exploit women’s fears in order to further their oppressive pro-life agenda. This was the mildest form of manipulation incorporated within the article. The most atrocious was the emotional attacks aimed at rape survivors. Targeting women who have survived rape in order to advance an agenda which restricts all women’s sexual freedom trivializes the experiences of these survivors. The pro-life movement’s attempt to con trol and regulate the reproductive behaviors of women is a reflection of the same patriar chal forces which perpetuate sexual assault and rape. Both are attempts to regain control over women, and it is insulting to suggest that relinquishing control over her body is the most appropriate avenue for a woman to cope with such a disempowering experi ence. Above are but two examples of the sen sationalistic tactics used by the Human Life Alliance in their seven-page anti-choice paid advertisement. Unfortunately, I am only a student and could not possibly afford such a pretentious advertisement, so I am limited to 550 words. It is ridiculous to suggest that an editorial of this size could adequately express the uneth ical nature of this expensive propaganda, but it is all that one who is not subsidized by the religious right can do. I do not have space to comprehensively address the lack of integri ty behind the tabloid-style rhetoric of such headlines as “Baby Parts for Sale.” Without such dollar power, all I can do is place confidence in students’ abilities to see through such insidious tactics and work to create an environment in which the student voice may actually be heard. Heather Mitchell is the education & outreach coordi nator for the ASUO Women’s Center. PFC duties include judgment I am writing on my own behalf— not for the Programs Finance Committee—and for the students who don’t realize that you’ve misled them in your editorial (“PFC the Cowardly Lion,” ODE, Jan. 26). If you will please do your reading, you will find that the PFC not only has the ability and power to judge the compli ance of a program to policy and law, it is our primary responsibility. Read our by laws, find a green tape note book and then go to the Oregon State online le gal archives and find all the pertinent laws for spending and funding compliance. After fa miliarizing yourselves with these rules, then figure out what our mandate is. The “Cultural and Physical development” clause is for basing the broader decision of a program’s purpose and has nothing to do with the actual details of spending compliance. The editorial seems to be an attack on the very group who decided that the Emerald reduce its dependence on the student fee as stated in its mission and goals statement (unfulfilled for 10 years). I do not resent your comments, and I hope you know this will not affect your budget process in anyway. I do find, however, that the content is more than a little inaccurate. If you would like me to walk you through every step of the entire process in detail, PFC is available in office hours right up the hall from the Emerald. I can also make the time for ap pointments. - - . The PFC is not simple, and understanding its depth is not easy. The PFC is a branch of the Student Senate as are all the finance commit tees. All associated powers of PFC are granted through the ASUO Constitution and the ASUO Student Senate. The bylaws are very precise as to the limitations and breadth of judgment. There are many judgments where PFC has to take into account conformity to rules and laws governing use of funds in ASUO Programs. This is my job. The Insurgent was no different for me. The discussion of the Insurgent, for me, was not one of censorship, as I see no problem with them printing it. However, there was the opin ion that it could have broken state or federal laws. I felt it was best to allow the allocation and then give our elected officials the chance to work this out without threat of missing deadlines for funding. This was the best com promise reachable. This solution also allows the ASUO Stu dent Senate and ASUO Executive the oppor tunity to come to resolution between the pro fessors and students to some satisfaction and the release of money. Understand this; the Senate, Jay and Holly now have the ball. They will decide what happens to the Insurgents’ funds and no others. I am confident in the ability of the Senate and Executive to resolve this issue to every one’s satisfaction. If you have another idea, feel free to do my job for me (I certainly don’t do it for the relaxation or the money). All sug gestions are welcome, but don’t criticize sim ply because you don’t understand. Aaron Week is an at-large member of the ASUO Pro grams Finance Committee.
