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.