Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 8, 2001)
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-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com Affirmative action for the 21 st century SAINTS AND PROFITS ERIC PFEIFFER More than 35 years after the first executive or der on affirmative ac tion was issued, the time has passed to define what equal opportunity does and should mean in the 21st century. More specifically, affirmative ac tion in higher education is going through a defining transition that will cast its future role in America. With the great ad vancements made by all minorities and the fe male majori ty, affirma tive action is in a position to take the next big step toward pro viding equality for every citizen. However, with a vague synopsis of what affirmative action actually means, and what it can accom plish, it also stands at the edge of a steep cliff, threatening to fall into obscurity. When President Richard Nixon issued White House Executive Or der 11246 in 1965 (later amended), he made the first bold step in the past 50 years toward providing equal opportunity in the workplace. That order issued a mandate that employers monitor their hiring of individuals from target groups (e.g., women) to find if it reflected the availability of talent in the commu nity. Needless to say, the results were not as promising as one would hope. To say that no progress has been made is as dangerous as to say that the need for more change has passed. Racial, cultural and reli gious minorities, gays, women, the disabled and the mentally ill have all seen their causes improve dra matically, especially in the past 10 years. However, progress does not equate to equality. The next stage of affirmative ac tion must be enacted to provide ac cess to higher education for the poor and disabled. While current law al lows preferred treatment for minori ties to higher education, it is only addressing part of the problem. Let’s say 60 percent of African Americans fall into the poverty gap. If we pass a law that gives pre ferred treatment to all African Americans, then we will likely help those 60 percent who exist m poverty, but we are also providing economic assistance and prefer ence to those who are not neces sarily in need. We should have an affirmative action system that opens doors for all citizens trapped in economic hardship. It doesn’t matter what color your skin is, what your gen der is, who you prefer to sleep with or what god you choose to worship. If you don’t have the fi nancial resources to provide for yourself, you are not going to sue ceed. Affirmative action based on economic need, combined with strictly enforced equal opportuni ty, would help all citizens in need. Marketability is the greatest mo tivation for equal rights. Look no further than your Thursday night network programming for proof. Television producers didn’t sud denly develop a conscience and decide it would be a good idea to start making some shows with gay and lesbian characters. Instead, what they found was that there is a responsive market for that type of programming, or as Nixon’s execu tive order decreed, “a target group for available talent in the commu nity.” By providing an equal eco nomic playing field for those with the ambition to succeed, we can gain the extra inches needed to overcome the hurdle of diversity still lagging in our society. Ask any member of the Islamic Five Percent Nation, an offshoot of the Black Muslim Nation of Islam, and they will tell you an army of educated men is a force to be reck oned with. There are many av enues of untapped potential that can be used in accomplishing this goal. Provide more money for gov ernment programs like Ameri corps, which offer tuition assis tance in return for community service. Also, don’t ignore the ef fectiveness of organizations that have already made significant contributions to higher education, such as the armed services. Final ly, instead of making it a fight be tween the public and private sec tors, reach further into community resources like faith-based organi Bryan Dixon Emerald zations so they can do a better job of helping their communities. While it may be politically sexy to play the blame game, this won’t get us anywhere as citizens. A poor, sick and hungry white kid suffers the same pain and humiliation as a poor Latino kid. Believe me, I’ve lived on that side of the tracks. When the left tells you that your problems don’t count because you’re part of the “rul ing elite,” it makes the emotional scars run that much deeper. Like wise, when the right tells a poor minority to simply try harder, they tear a great fissure in the cultural divide that can not be easily healed. In the end, we need a clear objective for over coming the problems of racism, sexism and poverty. I suggest that the most effective way of accomplishing this is by strict enforce ment of equal employ ment laws already on the books, and by pro viding economic as sistance to all of the ambitious poor. Eric Pfeiffer is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emer ald. His views do not neces sarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached a epfeiffe@gladstone.uore gon.edu. * It’s 50 years late, but we must apologize for No Gun Ri PAT PAYNE It was a mystery that had lain undis turbed in plain sight for 50 years. 1950: The South Korean and American armies on the Korean Peninsula were in full re treat. North Korean army troops had hound ed them to a 100-mile pocket centered around the port city of Pusan. Both Americans and South Koreans were paranoid, following reports of Communist troops dressing in peas ant clothing and hiding within the refugees fleeing south in order to create havoc. On July 26, this paranoia came to a head. Six hundred villagers, evacuated from areas near the front, were stopped near a railroad crossing at a place called No Gun Ri. The civilians were searched. Though no weapons or other incriminating evidence was found, the 600 were slaughtered in air and ground attacks. For 50 years, this story of a massacre of friendly civilians would lay buried and un known to the general populations of either America or South Korea. It would not be come public knowledge until 2000, when the Associated Press, during a routing retro spective of the 50th anniversary of the Kore an War, began interviewing troops who claimed to have witnessed the massacre. Now, with the discovery of distinctively American bullets embedded in the railroad bridge at No Gun Ri, we know that the Unit ed States Army was involved. For 15 months, the Army has steadfastly denied any culpability in the killings. But with ir refutable evidence presented, the Army has admitted our troops were involved. Admis sion is only part of the process, though. Our president has still to make a formal apology to the families of the victims. “What befell civilians in the vicinity of No Gun Ri in late July 1950 was a tragic and deeply regrettable accompaniment to a war forced upon unprepared U.S. and Republic of Korea forces,” is how the formal report, freshly released by the Department of the Army, describes the event. This is not an apology. At best, it is an admission of guilt. We, as a country, must apologize for this act. Whether this takes the form of a formal speech or a monument or reparations, something must occur. We committed a grievous wrong at No Gun Ri, one for which we must atone. A trial for those involved in the action, sadly, is out of the question. Many of those involved at captain rank or higher have al ready passed on. Arresting individual sol diers for the shootings would be a daunting prospect. Perhaps they could be arrested and tried, but to what end? Those who admitted to having been there have shown that they are haunted by the actions. The Army as a whole is not like those at No Gun Ri who let their emotion and para noia run wild. As a whole, the Army is pro fessional and disciplined. Yet by obfuscat ing and denying and being forced, “Perry Mason”-style, to finally admit wrongdoing, the Army’s leadership gives the appearance that they condone this action and that they have other skeletons to hide. What of de pleted uranium bullets and their health ef fects? What of the Gulf War syndrome? These are problems the Army doesn’t want to face. But like No Gun Ri, it must face them, and soon. Pat Payne is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emer ald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at Macross_SD@hot mail.com. Letters to the editor Confronted together Heather Mitchell claimed Tuesday (’’Pro life ad propaganda skewed scientific truth,” ODE, Feb. 6) that the Human Life Alliance’s insert had a “lack of integrity” and “tabloid style rhetoric.” I concede that some of the insert’s arguments are easily contested. It is good to expose rhetoric, but it’s ironic that her editorial was dominated by rhetoric as well, Little more than a third of her argument gave me any reason as to why I should side with a pro-choice position. This is not a per sonal attack on Heather Mitchell, but an at tempt to expose how crafty rhetoric is litter ing the debates in our culture. Take the often-used term “anti-choice.” This label is given to those who hold a “pro life” viewpoint. It doesn’t accurately de scribe the pro-life position. Pro-life obvious ly means “for” the life of the fetus/baby — not “anti-abortion” or worse, “anti-choice.” Pro-lifers would not object to a method of terminating a pregnancy (abortion) that kept the fetus alive. These labels are used to sway an impul sive audience before reason even enters the dialogue by appealing to our distaste for op pression. It is easy to slip into the rhetoric wars. Slowly, perhaps too slowly, I am becom ing more intellectually honest and less de fensive. We are a culture quickly losing our intellect and our soul. We are confronted to gether with the issue of abortion. As a cul ture committed to virtue and community, what will we do about this issue? Mike Al verts Eugene CORRECTION Yesterday’s guest commentary (“Money down the drain,” ODE, Feb. 6) incorrectly stated that the College Democrats are funded with inci dental fees. According to Lauren Manes of the College Democrats, the group has never accept ed student incidental fee money nor will they in the future.
