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.