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.