Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 9, 2001)
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 Free trade means Free reign iL h * w ell, the Summit of the Americas in Que bec, establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas, is long over. Hey wait, did you even hear about the gig in Quebec? Maybe you did, but more likely you didn't. “Free trade” supporters tried really hard to keep it a secret. They didn't want you to know that they now rule the world. Quebec's meeting was yet an other secret tribunal to establish a global marketplace. Concerned citizens (the media usually calls them “anarchists” to make you afraid and angry) were there, but they couldn't even slightly inter fere with the summit, thanks to a monstrous concrete and chain link fence surrounding the con vention center. As a result, the world plunged ever further into the dangerous, unexamined depths of globalization. It’s not that I'm blindly op posed to global commerce. It's inevitable, and it could be done right. But here's the problem: The toxic hot air conservatives huff and puff regarding “free trade” is usually technically true, and that's how they contin ue to lie to everyone and destroy the world. Corporate executives have the media and the average citizen convinced that opening up trade barriers is simply about “raising everyone's standard of living.” More jobs, more opportunities, everyone's happy; so goes the propaganda. And nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, it is true that by expanding international trade, we will create new markets, sell more products and create jobs. Yes, in some countries where markets are opened, the citizens fhere are hap py to have employment. Yes, this occasionally means things such as running water, electricity and some money to slowly build a bet ter life. I, and most thinking individu als, wouldn't be opposed to such scenarios. But a lot of intelligent people (oh yeah, “anarchists”) are upset, because a better standard of living isn't the reason for “free trade” pacts like the FTAA. The real impetus for interna tional agreements such as GATT, NAFTA, the WTO and the FTAA is to let businesses become the new world government. There's been talk in the past of expanding the United Nations’ powers to eventually form an international congress. But the process is slow (people have to vote on stuff), de veloping coun tries want a lot (like to be treated fairly), and “externali ties” have to be taken into account ' (like the environ- Mfll ment and human la rights). That doesn't please our friendly corporate executives. ■ Businesses want new 1 markets, lower wages, no environmental or labor standards and plenty of impoverished peasants to take advantage of, both as workers and consumers. And they want it now. Guess what? “Free-trade” agreements give busi nesses what they want. ^ And you, as a citizen of a “democratic” Western ^ government, don't get to elect anyone, you don't have any input on the laws and — best of all — you can't - j even know what j happens at the “legislative ses sions.” The governing bodies for these “free-trade” agreements almost al ways meet in secret. Even the FTAA agreement itself, signed by your president (he's not, I know), George W. Bush, is secret. And these secrets allow businesses to rewrite or eliminate laws passed by your democratically elected representatives. Here's a sample illustration: Americans, rightfully concerned about the amount of poisons re leased into their rivers from manufacturing, pass laws limit ing emissions. Greed Incorporat ed, concerned about its ability to compete globally when compa nies in other countries don't have these restrictions, com plains to the governing board of the “free-trade” agreement. The board decides that it's just not fair to tell a company not to poi son the water, so it erases the law. Citizens don't vote on it, there are no public hearings. It's• simply unfair, so the law is wiped away. I am in favor of free trade. But free trade should mean we raise the standard of living around the world. Wait, isn't that what con servatives say we're doing? Then why does “free trade” eliminate environmental laws and labor standards? Why does the WTO (the FTAA will soon) decide that it's OK for companies to poison the water and exploit the workers in Third World countries? Corporate executives who use “free trade” to lower the standard of living are callous, greedy pigs. It's the only answer. They must have higher profits, after all, and right now. It s a shame that the media, the government and corporations keep lying to you about what “free trade” really is. It’s too bad that most of you don't seem to care. Because if more responsible, car ing citizens were paying attention, there could have been enough people in Quebec to rip apart the fence of secrecy surrounding “free trade.” It's not that I like to see destruc tion. It's just that something must be done, or globalization will keep expanding until there's no standard of living. And when that happens, you ' "■ £ won't even hear about it. Michael J. Kleckner is the editorial editor for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at opededi tor@journalist.com. University’s integrity is suffering Guest Commentary iiillililllSll . . -... George Beres liilill A ! ±X CC Jk rrogance” by an employee was the phrase the University used to justify its pursuit of women’s basketball .coach Jody Runge that ended with her resignation. That’s an ironic choice of language. Arro gance seems better suited to describe the behavior of the University administration in a variety of areas in recent mopths. First, the University succeeded in getting the Oregon University System to agree that identifying major donors to the school was no longer was necessary. That got overturned by the state Legislature after many newspapers complained, citing the state’s public records law. But weeks later, coziness with the govern ing body was revived when the OUS gave the Universi ty permission to renege on its decision to join the Worker Rights Consortium because — among other things — the WRC was going too far in seeking fairness for underpaid and mistreated workers. Now the arbitrary behavior has spread to varsity ath letics, adding to the unsettling signs of dogmatic arro gance on the campus. First it was the decision to ignore the University’s academic mission by agreeing to a De cember date for the Civil War football game that con cludes the 2001 season. The president of the Universi ty Senate protested that this broke the long-standing rule to not schedule games at the time of final examina tions. It was the meek statement of a “toothless tiger,” • and it resulted in a not-surprising response from the of fice of a University vice president: “We gave the ques tion serious consideration.” But the exception stayed in place, he explained, because the TV money and na tional exposure that came with the change were too tempting to turn down. The latest example of failing University integrity came with the refusal to make public the independent review of coach Runge that was used to justify her resignation. Once again, when asked by the mass media for the report, the vice president responded directly and bluntly: “No. ” When told the report had to be released because of the state public records law, the answer was that the law did not apply because the $500,000 settlement with Runge to get her to resign came from money raised independent of the fiefdom of intercollegiate athletics. Conveniently ig nored was the fact that the state of Oregon underwrites varsity athletics at Oregon (and Oregon State and Port land State) with an annual grant to each of about $1 mil lion. The money comes from the state’s lottery revenues. Captive accountants of the University might claim oth erwise. But it is state money that made possible the mas sive buyout, as well as the payment of $25,000 to the in dependent reviewing agency. Without seeing the results of the review, the public—whose taxes paid for the buy out and the review—has no way of knowing whether her resignation was justified, or whether it was part of a vendetta against an outspoken woman coach. That question becomes secondary to the major issue: When did public universities in Oregon suddenly earn the special privilege of secrecy that no longer makes them accountable to the public that pays the bills? George Beres is a former Oregon sports information director, for mer editor of the University of Oregon faculty newsletter and for mer manager of the University Speakers Bureau. Retired, he now writes on the history of college sports. He can be reached at gberes@oregon.uoregon.edu.
