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.