Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 2, 2001)
Monday 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 Giovanni Salimena Emera w any luck, you’re rested and ready for some ‘elcome back to your life in college. With more learning. With bad luck, you got so incapacitated that you can’t remember anything you learned win ter term. The Emerald editorial board, in response to a week of slack ing, decided to devote today to read ers’ opinions, in order to catch up on the backlog caused by the ASUO election at the end of the term. Which reminds us, the ASUO gen eral election should be happening any t" time now. Please take a minute or two to refresh your memory and vote. Our endorsements (Nilda Brooklyn/Joy d Nair for ASUO Executive, yes on OS PIRG, no on MCC) can be found by clicking the “Perspectives” section of our Web site (www. dailyemerald.com). There are a few other hot topics to watch in the coming weeks: the situa tion with Jody Runge’s contract re newal, the anniversary of last year’s Johnson Hall protest to join the Work er Rights Consortium, campaign fi nance reform in the U.S. Senate, for mer Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s potential trial for war crimes, the upcoming execution of convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, and continued wrangling over higher education funding in Oregon’s budget. Keep your eyes and ears open: It’s spring, and things are afoot. This editorial represents the opinion pf the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu. Make the most change by putting your money where your mouth is The new OUS policy forbid ding discrimination in con tracting, which is likely to force the University to drop out of the Worker Rights Consor tium, has been harshly criticized. But there is good reason to favor a ban on politically motivated dis crimination by government agen cies. Government discrimination nearly always targets weak and/or despised groups, those who have little political power. There are very few examples in which offi cial discrimination did not benefit the powerful. While the goal of the WRC is to protect the weak against the pow erful, it takes a great, and histori cally unwarranted, faith in gov ernment to believe that a regular practice of official discrimination will, in the long run, work in fa vor of the weak. It is far better, therefore, to restriefall official discrimination than to promote it and hope it is always used wisely. Guest Commentary James Hanley A non-discriminatory standard will not diminish the ability to en courage social change. Those who believe it will are only announc ing their lack of imagination. In stinctively fuming to government to promote one’s goals is not a very creative approach to solving problems. Nor does it recognize where the real power for social change lies — with people who are willing to accept the costs of creating it. One of the ironies of the coer Poll Results Every week, the Emerald prints the results of our online poll and the poll question for next week. The poll can be accessed from the main page of our Web site, www.dailyemerald.com. We encourage you to send us feedback about the poll questions and results. Last week's poll question What is your favorite cheesy spring break movie? Results: 67 total votes Spring Break — 7 votes, or 10.4 percent Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise — 20 votes, or 29.9 percent Weekend at Bemie’s—18 votes, or 26.9 percent Full Metal Jacket — 20 votes, or 29.9 percent Revenge of the Nerds II is obviously the right answer. The movie kicks. But hey, nothing says “spring break fun” like a hardcore, gritty war movie. Party on, John Wayne. This week's poll question Which movie should have won theOscarfor best picture? The choices: Chocolat Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Erin Brockovich Traffic I’m glad Gladiator won. cive approach favored by the ' WRC is that it suggests an unwill ingness to share in the costs of positive social change. WRC sup porters want to punish businesses for alleged wrongdoing, but do not want to bear the costs of social change by rewarding them for “rightdoing.” The solution is simple, and is probably within acceptable bounds of the OUS policy: The University should reward its suppliers for improving pay and working conditions. Contractual incentives and bonuses for pro ducing University apparel in shops with favorable working conditions would entice suppli ers to enhance conditions be cause they would be rewarded for doing so. This cost increase would be passed on to con sumers of the apparel — that is, to you and me. Then we ctmld support social change by putting our money where our mouths are. This plan would also decrease the conflict that has created little but anger and mistrust on both sides. Phil Knight, who has giv en far more money for academics than for sports, would not have withdrawn his support if this simple policy had been fol lowed. Students would not have had to camp out at Johnson Hall for a. week. Advocates of social change would not have had to rely on the doubtful authority of a “democratic” vote on WRC membership in an election in which only 10 percent of the electorate cast votes. Most important, positive change in the working condi tions of apparel laborers would be happeningi-ight now, rather than waiting for the outcome of further political and legal wran gling. Only a taste for conflict would stand in the way of this simple solution. Only a dislike for corporations that is stronger than a concern for social justice would reject this approach. There are cynics who suspect that the WRC supporters’ anti corporate vendetta is more im portant than actually achieving social gains. Here is a chance to prove them wrong. Demand that the University of fer contract incentives for im proved working conditions, and then rush to the bookstore to buy the new, more socially acceptable, merchandise. James Hanley is an adjunct instructor in political science. Letters to the editor Keep your opinions to yourself There has been a definite theme in my University education: bias. In a school that adamantly touts diversity, it is evident that diversi ty is something we lack. In just about every class I’ve had through the duration of our beloved electoral process, profes sors have taken every opportunity to take a poke at George W. Bush. When I’ve gathered the gall to speak up, the reaction by the pro fessors) and fellow students has been one of distaste. If we are going to champion di versity, respect someone who doesn’t subscribe to your opinion. I pay what amounts to about $40 per lecture. So professors, don’t pollute your subject with your opinion. I don’t give a crap what you think. I pay this obscene amount of money to learn your subject, not to hear your opinion. If I wanted opinion, I’d read the letters to the editor. I want an edu cation. In the meantime, let me learn. I wasn’t even sure I should write this letter, for fear of further’ bias, but it’s important to speak up. J. Thomas Gombos senior journalism A reasonable judgment Finally, a voice of reason. In re gard to Jody Runge, your editorial comments were outstanding. The rush to judgment by The Register-Guard and Ron Bellamy leaves much to be desired when it comes to fair play and due process. The term “dead coach walking” by Bellamy was one of the most irre sponsible comments I have ever seen a sports writer make. I have followed Jody since she came to the University some eight years ago. She is a winner. She is not touchy-feely, but she demands perfection and her players respond. The Pac-10 is a tough Conference and Jody — with over 100 wins — has shown that she knows how to coach, re cruit and compete. I do not want to be critical of the players, but we are not talking about teenagers, but rather adults — 21, 22 and 23 years old. These are not children. It is also a fact that these women are paid athletes in that they have all accepted a free college educa tion in return for service rendered as a college basketball player. I have not seen this mentioned any where. The only accusations I have read pertain to verbal comments in pub lic. I certainly don’t think that those are grounds for dismissal of one of the top coaches in college basketball. Again, a great editorial. Richard C. Traynham Class of‘57 El Dorado Hills, Calif.
