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
The controversy surrounding the
University women’s basketball
program and its coach, Jody
Runge, gets more twisted every
day. Campus rumors are swirling around
this poorly scripted soap opera, ranging from
accusations of an Athletic Department conspir
acy to oust a strong woman coach, to gossipy
stories of Runge as a high-pressure, confronta
tive coach lacking proper communication skills.
Whatever the real situation, the time has
come for the University to show the community
its hand. Athletic Director Bill Moos needs to '
explain his actions and what seem like extreme
ly poor management decisions. If the depart
ment can show Runge has committed any real vi- *
olations, it needs to say so and move on with the
process. Right now, Runge’s reputation is being
unfairly tarnished because of some publicly whis
pered rumors.
The latest episode in the Runge battle involves, as
usual, anonymous sources. Reports last week from
these sources claimed that athletics staff initiated the
March 4 meeting between Moos and eight basketball
players. This was quickly assimilated by critics of the
department, adding fire to their conviction that Runge
is being persecuted because of her advocacy for gen
der equity in collegiate sports.
According to the critics, Moos laid the ground
work for firing Runge by arranging the meeting,
getting the players to complain about Runge’s
coaching methods and then running to The Regis
ter-Guard’s Ron Bellamy, who immediately went to
nrooc nollinn D1 " 1 1 ’ ** '
r-w«*.***^ u uuuu vvaixvmg.
Then on Thursday, two players who attended the in
famous meeting with Moos said publicly that the Athletic
Department did not orchestrate the private conference.
Shaquala Williams and Jamie Craighead insisted that the
team had been planning to complain to Moos for months. In
the world of journalism, the fact that these sources are named
increases their credibility. But to a skeptic, they’re not much
stronger than anonymous sources. After all, Williams and
Craighead will play for Oregon next year, and if Runge is
fired, they’ll still be working for Moos. If some graduates from
the team would speak out, the community might have a better
chance of sorting fact from fiction. But Jenny Mowe and An
gelina Wolvert, in a smart career move, have refused to speak
about this mess.
The air could be cleared by Runge. But she shouldn’t need
to make a public statement. She hasn’t actually been accused
of anything yet. In fact, the claims that have surfaced in the
last eight weeks make it sound as though Runge is (gasp) a
stern coach. Maybe she is, but that’s not a fireable offense.
That leaves us with the University. Moos is unlikely to
clear the air, as his management style so far has shown little
common sense. If employees come to you with serious com
plaints about one of your managers, the first thing you do is
talk to that person. Immediately determine if there’s any mer
it to the complaints. Make the two parties sit down together
so you can find out what’s going on. What did Moos do? He
told the salacious story to the media out one side of his
_ mouth, while the other side said he couldn’t name the players
because they wanted to keep their concerns private.
Even after leading media attention to the controversy, Moos
still should have met with Runge to explain the problem.
Only two official meetings have occurred since March 4, and
no specific concerns have been made public. If the depart
ment has proof that Runge is in serious trouble, they should
have said so by now.
Then Moos decided to further cast an incriminating
shadow over Runge’s behavior. The University hired a law
firm, nationally known for its investigations into troubled
basketball programs and NCAA violations, to conduct a full
assessment of Runge’s performance. Again, no specific
claims were made, but the implication is that Runge’s prob
lems are so serious that a manager can’t solve them unas
sisted. The critics chime in again here, saying the investi
gation was a sham designed to collect just enough minor
concerns to legally justify firing Runge.
The hiring of the law firm was apparently a hasty manage
rial decision as well. After delivering its report Wednesday,
the Kansas City-based firm itself is now under scrutiny by the
Oregon Board of investigators', because allegedly its tawyefs'
Giovanni Salimena Emerald
weren’t actually licensed to practice in Oregon. Oops.
With Moos seemingly unable to handle this situation like
an adult, University President Dave Frohnmayer should have
stepped in at some point and taken control of this situation,
either by explaining the accusations against Runge or by
quelling the controversy. Instead, Frohnmayer told The Reg
ister-Guard the amazing revelation that he was going to with
hold judgment until he had all the facts.
That’s mighty nice of you, sir, but it doesn’t help. It has only
added to the mystique. What did she do? Is there a conspira
cy ? Will she be fired? The public has no real basis on which to
judge, and they deserve the truth. If it’s a not public matter,
then why did Moos make it public?
Until someone makes a substantive complaint about
Runge, complete with named sources and corroboration,
she should be considered innocent. Innuendo and anony
mous complaints are a poor excuse for proof. The only
thing this controversy has proven so far is that if Runge
needs to do some work to improve her performance, Moos
needs a total retraining.
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Re
sponses can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
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:
Who is your favorite Saturday Night Live character?
Results: 167 total votes
Dana Carvey as the Church Lady—34 votes, or 20.4 percent
Tim Meadows as the Ladies Man — 15 votes, or 9 percent
Eddie Murphy as Mr. Robinson —17 votes, or 10.2 percent
Rob Schneider as the Copy Guy—10 votes, or 6 percent
Molly Shannon as Mary Katherine Gallagher—13 votes, or 7.8 percent
Chris Farley as Matt Foley, motivational speaker—78 votes, or 46.7 percent
Wow. It’s the really important questions that get a big response. It wasa valiant battle, but
Dana Carvey never caught up to Chris Farley after an initial surge. But what about Hanz
and Franz? Why wasn't Goat Boy or the Wild and Crazy Guys on this list? Jeez.
This week’s poll question:
What should happen on the final episode of “Survivor”?
The choices:
Colby is the final survivor
Colby finally loses immunity
Host Jeff Probst gets attacked by wild dingos
The jury drinks too much and is hung
CBS cans the stupid show ,7,7.7.77. 77.7,7.7/ 777/77,7,777/
Letter to the editor
Ad supplement is anti-woman and
inappropriate
I am absolutely appalled by the inclu
sion of the lovematters.com advertising
supplement (inserted in the April 24
ODE) in the Emerald. Its pro-Christian,
pro-life, anti-woman statements are
completely inappropriate for circula
tion in a student body newspaper.
I, for one, will never pick up another
copy of your newspaper again.
Meredith R. Branch
research assistant
Center for the Study of Women in Society
University of Oregon
CONTACT US!
The Oregon Daily Emerald welcomes and
will attempt to print all letters on topics
of interest to the University community.
Letters are limited to 250 words. The
Emerald may edit any letter for length,
clarity, grammar, style and libel. Letters
may be mailed, dropped off at EMU Suite
300, or e-mailed to the addresses at the
top of the page. Also, please feel free to
give your feedback to any individual story
or column directly at our Web site. Feed
. back comments may appear in print at
•our discretion. Keep in touch!