Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Editor in Chief:
Andrew Adams
Associate Editors:
Jeremy Lang
Peter Hockaday
Editorial
Universities must
address sports issue
A
t first it was a group of
students who called for
change. No one really
took them seriously,
and despite their encampment
on the front lawn of Johnson Hall
and some token changes, which
were quickly repealed, every
thing stayed the same. Then
some of the University’s top fac
ulty members, including English
Professor James Earl, started to
express their concerns at what
they saw as a serious threat to aca
demics. Earl went so far as to draft
a resolution that has been adopt
ed by most schools of the Pacific
10 Conference.
That received some notice,
but the situation stayed mostly
the same.
Then the Knight Commission
revealed its own findings, which
suggested that there was indeed a
problem. And now several folks
in the community, including a
state senator, are also beginning
to find fault with this University
and its Athletic Department.
Most everyone is a Duck fan
here in Eugene.The football
games arft a thrilling tradition and
a spectacle no student should
leave here without enjoying. But
what people find fault with is
that this same spectacle seems to
be getting out of hand.
Recently, the University has
received criticism from several
state broadcasters and Sen. Rick
Metsger, D-Welches, a former
Portland sportscaster, over a
proposed policy to limit their
footage from Duck football
games to 20 seconds, which
they say is a violation of their
right to free speech.
In and of itself, this could be
seen as a somewhat minor issue,
and one that likely will be re
solved by kickoff Sept. 1 when
the Ducks take on the University
of Wisconsin. But in the light of
all the other complaints against
the University administration be
cause of athletics, it just is one
more example of this institution’s
bull-headed arrogance in regard
to sports. One big bowl game win
and a likely high spot in the na
tional rankings, and this Univer
sity starts to stmt around like it’s
the biggest dog on the block.
There was the three-story bill
board in downtown New York, a
multi-million dollar stadium ex
pansion, the games scheduled in
the middle of the week before fi
nals for television dollars, and
now the University is trying to
control local broadcasters to pro
tect a contract with ESPN.
When and where will it end?
President Dave Frohnmayer
has repeatedly said the issue is
one of great importance to the
University and that he is active
ly working to address it with
other administrators around the
country. One of those could be
former University of Oregon
President Myles Brand, who is
now president of Indiana Uni
versity and has become one of
the more outspoken critics of
the rampant commercialization
of intercollegiate athletics.
Yet Frohnmayer’s words ap
pear to ring hollow when one
takes into account how the Ath
letic Department continues to
draw fire from both the academ
ic community and now the
community in general. His most
recent move was to announce
that the University would begin
to scale back the budget subsidy
to the Athletic Department from
the University’s general fund.
But this move is meaningless if
one takes into account that by
the time the subsidy is at zero,
the Athletic Department will be
making far more revenue from
its expanded Autzen Stadium.
How can this University con
tinue to act in such a manner
when big, bloated and powerful
athletic departments are being
criticized by professors, inde
pendent groups, former adminis
trators and community members?
The answer is tougher to find
than the problems. There is no
doubt that demand for top-qual-* ’*
ity intercollegiate athletic pro- *r‘
grams will not decrease anytime
in the future. This is especially
true in a state such as Oregon
where a lack of professional
sports teams puts an even
greater emphasis on the top two
universities to field competitive
athletics. Therefore, universi
ties themselves cannot be solely
responsible for this problem, as
fans have created a need for
huge stadiums and top teams
funded by millions.
But the fans were always
there when both the University
of Oregon and Oregon State
University sports teams were
the laughingstock of the Pac-10
and unknowns in the nation.
We will love our Ducks and
Beavers regardless of where
they stand in the nation.
When one takes into account
that the demand for athletics will
remain constant, the argument
can be made that universities
themselves must be responsible
for stopping their shameless self
promotion. The University has
earned the national reputation
and attention it has longed for;
now is the time when it can show
some restraint and end the manic
pursuit of an even bigger stadium
or more millions in broadcast
deals and merchandising.
It’s common knowledge that
this is just part of the business of
higher education. But has it re
ally gotten so bad that we can
only resign ourselves to this?
Can’t we expect our University
to adhere to a better standard
and not sell its academic mis
sion short just for the sake of
prestige on an athletic field?
Let’s hope so.
This editorial represents the views of the
Emerald’s editor in chief and does not nec
essarily represent the views of the Oregon
Daily Emerald.
The dot-coms’demise isn’t all bad
Just because dot-coms are go
ing under everywhere one
looks doesn't mean my life af
ter college has to as well.
It's taken me almost a year to be
able to see the truth in that state
ment. As a journalist with an interest
and background in the online indus
try, I thought
my degree and
work experi
ence as a Web
guru would buy
me a one-way
ticket to success
in the real
world. I thought
I'd be the one
who would get
Rink
Wired
the killer dot
com job every
twenty-some
thing dreams
about—the job
where I'd make
enough money that I could retire in
my 30s, work (or maybe I should say
hardly work) in a huge downtown
office and play foosball or pinball
during breaks, spend summer nights
on the company "booze cruise," or
take an expenses-paid trip to Las Ve
gas for no reason other than to eat
dinner at the Stratosphere. But
somehow, these dreams have faded
in my mind the same way you forget
(how sunshine feels on your face dur
ing the dead of an Oregon winter.
I know I'm not going to get a job
like that because it no longer exists
in today's marketplace. The dark
cloud of impending dot-com doom
has made its way through the tech
industry, handing out more pink
slips than raises or signing bonus
es. At least I’ve come to terms with
the fact that I'm a couple years too
late to indulge in the blitz of job op
portunities.
The scary thing, however, is that
there is some good to the demise of
the dot-com industry. Just think
about the possibilities. Maybe
someday we'll finally stop hearing
about the kids who join Internet
startups to make a quick buck.
We'll stop reading articles in news
papers and magazines about the
hottest CEO who struck it rich with
the right investors. We'll realize
that working 12-hour days so we
can retire quickly isn't as glam
orous as it's cracked up to be. We'll
appreciate the jobs and lives we
have in "suburbia" because we
won't be burned out from the long
commute in and out of the city.
We'll be able to afford apartments
and houses that aren't the size of a
shoebox, as well as spend time
with friends and family, not just the
caffeine-addicted co -workers in
the cubicles next to us. We might
actually own stock in a company
that doesn't just give us our pay
checks. We won't try to become the
next Bill Gates anymore. If we are
unemployed, well look for a com
pany that wants to hire and retain
experienced employees, not the
next whiz kid down the street.
Most importantly, we won't be
one of the statistics. We won't be
part of the thousands of SUV-driv
ing wannabe yuppies who lose
their jobs every day (according to
Challenger, Gray and Christmas, a
Chicago-based employment con
suitor that tracks the dot-com sec
tor, the 2001 dot-com layoff toll
now numbers almost 65,000). We
won't be mentioned on message
boards for Web sites that serve as
online sources for "bad news” and
related information on the failures
of the dot-com industry. We won't
be the topic of discussion among
our friends, who we hope pity us,
but instead enjoy their boring 8-5
jobs more than we’ll ever know.
So where does this leave me and
my journalism degree? Since I can't
join the force of dot-comers, I guess
I'm stuck with one realization. I
might actually have to use what I
learned in college to get a job — or
at least a job with security, whatev
er that may be. And I think I'll take
that stability over anything, unless
it comes in the form of my own pri
vate jet...
Carol Rink is the online editor for the Oregon
Daily Emerald.
Gene tests raise complex questions
Guest Commentary
Knight-Ridder
Tribune
To the surprise of those who
expect him to oppose re
flexively any government
restraints on business,
President Bush announced that he
would support legislative restric
tions against using genetic tests to
deny people insurance coverage or
employment.
In his June 24 radio address to the
nation, Bush said "genetic discrimi
nation” is unjustified because "among
other reasons... it involves little more
than medical speculation."
Bush's position is both correct
and a bit too easy. Congress should,
indeed, enact a prohibition on us
ing genetic test results in employ
ment and insurance. But down the
I.....
road a blanket prohibition may
well prove counterproductive, un
enforceable or both.
Bush overstated things when he
said gene test results involve "little
more than medical speculation."
Existing tests can produce results
that range from mere possibility to
high probability that an individual
will contract a particular disease.
Over time, both the numbers of
tests and their predictive capabili
ties are sure to grow.
Most of our current limitations
on employers' and insurers' rights
to discriminate are based on the
conviction that an individual
should not be disadvantaged for
possession of an attribute over
which he or she has no control.
Given the state of things at this
moment, the situation seems to cry
out for legislation. But it is an illu
sion to suppose that this genie can
be kept bottled up indefinitely.
In the future, says Professor Paul
R. Wolpe of the University of Penn-,
sylvania's Center for Bioethics, ge
netic testing will be "a fundamental,
ubiquitous part of our health care."
But Wolpe says there may be less
obvious solutions to some of these
problems. An employer's motive for
not hiring someone with a genetic
susceptibility to a particular disease,
for example, generally will stem
from a desire to avoid large medical
expenses for that employee. But
what if we had a different system of
health care, in which such expenses
fell not on individual employers but
on society as a whole? That motive
for discrimination would disappear.
By throwing his support behind
the effort, President Bush has sub
stantially boosted the prospects for a
bill to ban genetic discrimination.
But this is an issue with many layers
of complexity, and it won't be solved
by a single piece of legislation.
Steve Bagg* for the Emerald