Wednesday
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
State board proves money conquers all
f *** f
DIARY OF A
' Malcontent
MICHAEL J. KLECKNER
I am so mad at the state Board
of Higher Education for its de
cision about labor codes of
conduct. The University can
no longer demand anything from
companies it does business with,
except that they follow the law.
Geez, that’s responsible. What a
way to set an example for stu
dents.
So the University will no»/ cut
off ties with the Worker Rights
Consortium and the Fair Labor
Association. Great. Let’s have no
standards at all!
I’m not just mad because we
lost. Student activists and sweat
shop slaves lost big time, that’s
true. But I’m more intelligent than
that.
I’m mad because this decision
happened without public input.
And the state board knew that and
did it anyway.
If the state had engaged in a dis
cussion about what role state uni
versities should have in determin
ing wdrom they do business with,
and then we still lost, I wouldn’t
be so upset. But instead, the board
made a decision, which is strictly
political, without public input
and called it “politically impar
tial.”
This “neutrality” is the part that
bothers me the most. The
board said that state uni
versities must do business , :
in a “straightforward and
politically impartial manner”
— as though that would equal
neutral action. But it doesn’t.
By removing from the equa-'
tion concerns about how busi
nesses operate, we are making
a very strong political state
ment. We’re saying, “All that
matters is money. Money,
money, money.”
And that’s sick. And it’s
wrong.
Economics likes to term
political concerns “exter
nalities,” as though they
don’t mean anything.
But they do. The deci
sions we make with
our money are always
political, and the “ex
ternalities” always
have real ramifica
tions. If we buy Nike
shoes, we’re saying we
think it’s acceptable for
Nike to hire a crappy facto
ry that mistreats its workers,
and Nike does nothing to
change the situation. That’s very
political.
University President Dave
Frohnmayer, the state Board of
Higher Education, Chancellor
Cox and every elected politician
in Oregon should feel shame. Be
cause the message they’re sending
to young people across the state is
that nothing matters but money.
Make a lot of money, by any
means necessary. Maybe that
should now be,
“Buy any means
necessary.”
How do we expect young peo
ple to grow up with a sense of
morals, ethics and humanity if we
tell them that those concerns are
irrelevant? What are we teaching
our youth?
Everyone involved with this de
cision should be ashamed. The
rest of us should be outraged, and
we should speak out. Otherwise,
we’re acting “politically impar
tial,” and then we’re
guilty, too.
Michael J. Kleckner is the editorial editor
for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views
do not necessarily represent those of the
Emerald. He can be reached at opededi
tor@journalist.com.
Letters to the editor
Recommendation illogical
The Emerald’s Monday recommendation
of OSPIRG’s ballot measure is short on rea
son and long on rationalization.
The first and most important argument
against funding OSPIRG is the group’s com
plete and total lack of accountability. The
Emerald claims that this matters to them,
but it is apparent that these concerns are sec
ondary to their support of OSPIRG’s causes.
Which is more important? Following the
rules or being politically correct?
The Emerald asserts that OSPIRG has
“made strides toward greater accountability
in recent years.” What strides? OSPIRG has
done no such thing, except publish a hand
ful of meaningless, contradictory estimates
of how its money is spent. These “budgets”
are about as accurate as a Florida re-count,
and yet the Emerald bought OSPIRG’s claim
of accessibility hook, line and sinker. The
editorial board should be ashamed for such
gullibility.
The Emerald is justified in calling upon
OSPIRG for greater “transparency” and an
“end-of-year financial statement,” but if the
Emerald believes that OSPIRG will ever sub
mit to such indignities, they are deluding
themselves.
If OSPIRG wanted to be accountable, it
would go to the Programs Finance Commit
tee with budgetary information. But it does
n’t, because as long as the fraction of cam
pus that votes rubber-stamps its funding
request, it doesn’t have to.
If the Emerald wants accountability from
OSPIRG, they should have recommended a
“No” vote. Endorsing its ballot measure
while demanding “that it become more
transparent” only compounds the problem.
Until the student body tells OSPIRG to
shape up, it won’t.
William Beutler
director of communications
Honesty campaign
Intolerance rampant, uncivil
Walking into the Klamath computer lab
the other day, I noticed an ASUO election
poster for Bret Jacobson and Matt Cook. It
was well designed, with their stance on is
sues, such as better relations with the Eu
gene Police Department and disassociation
from the Worker Rights Consortium.
The poster had a picture of the candi
dates, complete with a small swastika plant
ed on Bret’s forehead. I want to thank who
ever placed that swastika on the poster for
giving me one more reason to believe this is
the most intolerant, one-sided university
imaginable.
I have been angered by the ignorance of
conservative views by the majority of this
University. Bret and Matt were not exactly
speaking from the right in their campaign,
but perhaps the bitterness of the University
attempting to dislodge itself from the joke of
an organization that is the WRC is catching
up to a disrespectful and irresponsible
group of people.
Voicing opinions through letters and
speeches has always been a civil way of
coming to solutions. Placing random
swastikas on campus leads to bewilderment
and anger.
I do not know Bret and Matt, but I can
only assume their moderate stance on some
issues led someone to animate their posters
with a symbol of hate and genocide. I don’t
believe Bret and Matt were intending to be
come the Gestapo, but were running a clean
campaign for what they believed were the
best interests of the University.
Let’s celebrate that by listening to the
views, not magnifying the intolerance.
Gregg Schiveley
senior
environmental studies
OSPIRG gets results
One glance at the headlines, one toxic
swim in the Willamette or one look at your
tuition bill should alert you to the need for
change in Oregon. You may wonder why no
politician is resolving these problems. Un
fortunately, it takes public pressure to get
politicians moving and to help them make
the best decisions. You have to get involved
or lend support to someone or something
that will get involved for you.
That’s why it’s important for people to
support OSPIRG and vote yes. OSPIRG gets
results — protecting millions of acres of
forests, saving students money, monitoring
polluters and raising awareness about issues
that could mean life or death on a global
scale. I recently became involved with OS
PIRG as a volunteer as a way to be part of the
solution rather than part of the problem.
People complain that OSPIRG spends
money hiring non-students and off-campus
staff. The problems we work on aren’t limit
ed to campus. We can’t put a bubble around
Eugene and clean only our air and water.
Practical solutions to real problems require
the aid of expert staff at the University and
around the state.
We can argue about incidental fees until
the last old-growth tree falls on Oregon and
the last fish floats to the top of the Willamette.
Or we can work together as students within
an established organization to make real
changes. I encourage everyone to vote yes
for OSPIRG — it’s more important now than
ever before.
J.J. Burkart
senior
journalism
Vote yes for the environment
I’m writing to encourage people to vote in
support of OSPIRG this week.
It’s an easy choice. Vote yes for OSPIRG if
you want to see forests preserved, clean
rivers and wild places in Oregon and Ameri
ca saved. Vote no if you want more
clearcuts, dirtier water and the degradation
of the environment.
Don’t let the campus right-wing muddle
the argument. It’s as simple as that. OSPIRG
is fighting for a healthier planet. A loss for
OSPIRG in this election only means one less
level of defense for the environment and the
world we live in.
At this point, OSPIRG needs support
more than ever. George Bush is in office and
Gale Norton, the secretary of the interior, is
ready to return us to Watt-era environmental
policy. OSPIRG is one of many groups that
we need to fight on a statewide level to help
protect what little is left of the wild spaces
in Oregon.
Why do you think the right comes out so
strong against OSPIRG? It’s because OSPIRG
is effective. Fight 'em tooth and nail. The
health of our planet is at stake. Do the right
thing. Vote yes on OSPIRG.
Willie Thompson
sociology
senior