Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 14, 2001)
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-maii: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com A TOWERING PRESENCE on AND off the court The storm surrounding Oregon women’s head basketball coach Jody Runge took an interesting turn Sun day, when the Ducks learned they had earned a spot in the NCAA Tournament, their eighth-straight trip to the Big Dance. The postseason development came, of course, just one week after eight players went to Athletic Director Bill Moos asking that Runge’s fiery ca reer at Oregon be extinguished. Whatever action the University is consider ing taking against Runge will now have to wait until after the Ducks are finished with the 64 team tourney. The relatively calm environ ment gives the Emerald editorial board an op portunity to complement opinions put forth in Monday’s newspaper relating to Runge’s con tentious relationship with players. While Runge’s behavior on the court— yelling at players, yelling at referees, yelling just to yell sometimes, it seemed — has rou tinely drawn criticism throughout her eight years at Oregon, Moos and others in the Uni versity community need to consider the work she’s done behind the scenes before rushing to a final judgment. We don’t con done what has been called “abusive treat ment” against players, but remember that most of these charges were brought under the cover of anonymity. Until all the facts are truly in, well, let’s consider all the facts. The opinion that Runge has established Oregon women’s basketball as a national power will get no disagreement, whether the conversation is taking place in the Casanova Center or over the office copy machine. There is little doubt that Oregon made it into the 2001 NCAA tourney based on its nation al image, not necessarily its lukewarm suc cess on the court this year. She made a positive national image a goal the day she was hired in April 1993: build this team into a Pac-10 terror and a national power house. One hundred and sixty wins later, to go along with a 69 percent success mark overall, Runge has fulfilled her promise. Fans at the University and in the Eugene community have regularly turned out by the thousands to jump on the bandwagon, and Runge is largely responsible for the increased interest. Before she began coaching the Ducks, attendance at the women’s games hovered around 670 fans a game. Since she was hired, however, there’s been a 600 percent increase in attendance, to an average of5,852 fans at each game in McArthur Court this year, according to the University’s Web site. Putting more fans in the seats means in creased revenue, and it brings Runge a lot closer to her admirable goal of making the program self-supporting. Some readers might be shaking their heads about now, grumbling about all of this focus on winning. Isn’t basketball just a game, one that should be more about the ex perience and not so much about the out come? In simple terms, yes. But Oregon is a big-time university, competing with hun dreds of other Division I schools all aiming to fill their coffers with advertising and mer chandising revenue to stay afloat. Runge and the Ducks aren’t just compet ing against other women’s basketball pro grams for their slice, either. The men’s bas ketball tournament, which begins Thursday, consistently overshadows the women’s fes tivities, and this is the arena where Runge’s most important — and most controversial — accomplishments and fights have emerged. Runge has long been a champion of gender equality in Oregon athletics, which likely hasn’t earned her many fans within the Ath letic Department. In 1995, she threatened a lawsuit based on parts of her original con tract that Runge and her lawyer said violated Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, the federal legislation that prohibits sexual discrimination at institutions receiv ing federal money. Her salary increased that year almost two fold to $80,000, and then Runge signed a four-year contract extension in April 1999 worth about $200,000, which put her in the same financial neighborhood as Oregon men’s basketball coach Ernie Kent. Can someone please tell us why this scenario should be anything but welcomed? Equal pay for equal work; this isn’t rocket science. Chromosomes shouldn’t play a role in how much a person is compensated for his or her job, and Runge was bold enough to demand an even playing field. Yet, apparently the University still has a foot in the Stone Age, since earlier this sea son Runge was refused compensation for do ing her weekly TV show, even though Kent is paid for the same duty. You might yell a bit, too, if you were con stantly facing those circumstances. In addition to pushing her players to per Giovanni Satimena Emerald form on the court — through' whatever means necessary at times — Runge has pressed them to perform their best in the classroom. As a result, the Ducks regularly dominate the Pac-10 Conference All-Acade mic team; Runge’s 1996-97 squad had the fourth-highest GPA mark in the nation among women’s basketball teams. The recent sensationalism of Runge’s in teractions with her players should make us all stop and think about the role sports plays in our society. But before any decision is made about Runge’s future at Oregon, those who have the final say need to consider all that she has done for the program. While we disagree with the common per ception that this is her last season at the Uni versity, it should be remembered that Runge has taken the program to heights it hasn’t seen before. It’d be a shame if her career at the Uni versity ends on such a sour note, when she’s done so much to sweeten the pot for women’s athletics across the nation. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to ode@ore gon.uoregon.edu. Higher education should start using higher principles Guest Commentary George Beres It was just half a year ago that the Oregon State Board of High er Education got burned for playing footsie with the Univer sity of Oregon on a public matter. You’d think it would learn, or at least get its higher principles in order. But its effort to derail the role of the Worker Rights Consortium at the University suggests otherwise. First time around, it approved an appeal by University President Dave Frohnmayerto allow the University to keep the names of major donors anonymous. Collusion between the Board and the University would have been successful had it not been reviewed by the mass media. Objec tions were raised statewide. The is sue was the public’s right to know. Also at stake was the dangerous side effect of anonymity, allowing the possibility of significant donors in fluencing University policy in scheming privacy. Now the Board claims it was not trying to stifle campus efforts to im prove factory working conditions at companies that supply Oregon universities when it approved a new policy barring membership in labor-monitoring organizations. The policy stipulates that schools can’t have rules or procedures “which have the effect of eliminat ing the ability to compete.” In effect, that is what the Univer sity might do as a result of the Li censing Code of Conduct it adopt ed. The code sets standards for companies producing merchan dise that carries the University’s logo or name. On behalf of big busi ness, the Board insists on narrow criteria for barring companies from campus contracts: evidence of ille gal activity, inability to do the job or any condition not allowed by state rule or law. Consider some of the standards that apparently don’t fit the Board’s criteria: • Having safe and humane work places • Banning child and forced labor • Paying a fair wage • Allowing collective bargaining I’m tempted to say, “give us a break! ” But it’s obvious the State Board is interested in giving breaks only to corporations who donate big money. The University proposed mem bership in another supposed watch dog group, the Fair Labor Associa tion. Student activists objected be cause the FLA gives industry representatives a seat on its board and a say in the monitoring process. The University of Illinois, one of 67 college members of the WRC, also joined the FLA. Illinois pub licly stated that “both groups have a role to play.” Both reacted to alle gations that workers in the Kuk dong International factory in Mexi co had been attacked by company police and then lost their jobs. Nike is one of the companies buying sweatshirts made at Kukdong. Ore gon, as well as Illinois, is among schools whose logos are used. In this case, collaboration between the WRC and the FLA has gotten re sults, as Nike, under pressure, pres sured factory managers to reinstate all workers. Some WRC members complain that having industry representa tives on the FLA board is like hav ing the fox guard the chicken coop. Still, the Kukdong experience sug gests the two boards may be able to work in tandem, if the State Board would give them a chance. But there will be no chance if valid hu man rights standards can’t be used by universities. Unless the Oregon University System changes its subservient posture to corporate influence, the state will be left with a dictatorial image it can ill afford, and would fully deserve. George Beres is the former editor of the University of Oregon faculty newsletter and former manager of the University Speakers Bureau.
