Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 3, 2001)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com Online Edition: www.dailyemerald.com Editor in Chief: Jessica Blanchard Managing Editor: Michael J. Kleckner Editorial Editor: Julie Lauderbaugh Assistant Editorial Editor: Jacquelyn Lewis Wednesday, October 3,2001 Editorials ASUO must fight for whafs right One of the duties of our student govern ment, the ASUO, is to provide a voice for the students. We applaud the administra tion for attempting to do just that. We thank our elected leaders for their efforts to educate students about and eliminate the new energy fee added to tuition this year. Since the fee was an nounced, the student government has been working toward alternative solutions. The Sept. 27 rally events, which consisted of a media event and an open forum where students could ask questions, showed us just how hard the ASUO is actually will ing to work in order to get rid of the energy fee. However, a poor student turnout and a seeming lack of interest in this cause definitely makes one wonder if these efforts are perhaps misguided. Maybe students, especially those whose parents are footing the bill for school, don’t care about the new energy charge. After all, it’s only $30 (which isn’t much unless it’s coming out of your own pocket). Or maybe the ASUO’s efforts have been just a little short of gaining student attention. Either way, the student government needs to think about where its hard work and energy are going. While eliminating the new fee is definitely a worthy, important cause, perhaps it needs to think of new ways to approach the problem. v One thing the ASUO can do is appeal to the State Board of Higher Education. The State Board has the power to reject the energy surcharge — if we can con I vince them to do it. If our leaders truly speak for stu { dents and students are genuinely upset about the fee, ! then they need to stand up and demand that the board i eliminate the fee. The little things really do count Hooray for Lane County! We’re officially the No. 1 recycler in the state. Residents should be proud to live in a county that has as many recycling options as ours. Lane Coun ty boasts not only the University, which has one of the best university recycling programs in the country, but also a multitude of recycling options for everyone in the community. Lane County offers venues for recy cling everything from soda cans to motor oil. As a di rect effect of these options, the county has recovered and recycled 52 percent of its collected waste, truly earning the recognition it’s received from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Another great service which makes it easier to recycle is the new curbside yard debris program in Eugene. We can also be proud of the Begin Recycling in Neighborhood Groups recycling service, or BRING, which recently celebrated its 30-year anniversary. One of the best things about this achievement is that we have ourselves to thank. Everyone who recycles plays a part in reducing waste and making Lane County No. 1. Whether it’s just soda cans or all of your house hold waste, you can be proud that you helped this hap pen and will continue to help it happen in the future. While the bigger picture includes getting companies to use less packaging and waste in their manufacturing processes, Lane County’s new recognition once again brings home the point that taking care of the environ ment starts with the little things we do as individuals. Editorial Policy These editorials represent the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to editor@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words. Please include contact information. The Emerald reserves the right to editfor space, grammar and style. Always After So Phil Knight has returned, much to the glee of the Univer sity administration and Athletic Department. And while most accounts of this re turn liken it to a welcome and surprise homecoming for a long-lost member of the family, I can not help but view it with nothing more than bemused am bivalence. This is simply because we should all have known this was bound to happen, and most likely sooner than later — which it did. We should have been aware because the Knight/University dynamic is just one example of how public universi ties work these days. It was somewhat amusing to see the Register-Guard publish fawning reports when the beloved Knight appeared at a few sports events last year and to hear the administration dramatically pro claim that it will heroically carry on even with the added burden of not hav ing Knight’s generous donations. But honestly, could we actually believe that Knight would not return in a year or two following the whole Worker Rights Consortium debacle? It would be ridiculous not to believe it. Just like this University needs Knight’s money, Knight’s ego needs this Universi ty. Maybe Knight was not too popular when he was an undergraduate here and did not get too many dates, party invites or whatever and so now when he is a millionaire several times over he can use his laigess to rebuild this University in his own image. Where else could Knight put his money — Lane Community Col lege? I don’t think so. Knight likely always had an inten tion to return to the University, but likely just wanted to see the Universi ty squirm a bit to see how much his millions were needed. Knight may have honestly become upset over University President Dave Frohnmayer’s decision to sign on with the fledgling WRC. But what followed after Knight’s initial proclamation was nothing short of high drama. Frohnmayer immediate ly started to supplicate to Knight for his reconsideration in the matter and at the same time the University set in motion the means to extricate itself through the letter of law from the WRC. The State Board of Higher h V V 'XT 2S4^ Education gave the University a means to escape from the WRC. And now since the University has dis tanced itself from the messy issue of foreign labor, our beloved “knight” in shiny armor has come to our school’s rescue. Everything fell neat ly into equilibrium. One of the best, and most repeated, products of this summer’s rumor mill — and so its truth is questionable — was that the jet carrying Joey “Heisman” Harrington, Athletic Department offi cials and key members of the media to New York City for the unveiling of the mammoth Harrington billboard was not sponsored by a group of well-endowed alumni, but in fact one well-known alumni who used the trip to signal his renewing affection for his alma mater. Do not misunderstand this column, I am not against Knight and his money. I sincerely appreciate the tenured profes sors, renovated library, new law school and updated Autzen Stadium that ath letic shoe money can buy. I am just, again, impressed by the steadfast re Steve Baggs Emerald fusal of some people to not come to grips with the idea that higher educa tion is a form of business financed by donations. This is even more true in a state like Oregon that is usually hard pressed to fund all its state programs in a good year, and is even now consider ing an emergency session for further budget cuts. But when I see the out pouring of jubilation in Knight’s return, and also those saying: "This just high lights the growing problem of private donors buying influence in public insti tutions,” I see people who still have not realized how higher education works. This institution has a bottom line and must consider that above all else. All these great educational pro grams are not funded by good will and respect for the common good — they are funded by money and those who have money. Andrew Adams is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. He can be reached at andrewadams@dailyemerald.com. Letter to the editor Columnist’s logic adds up to extremism I was surprised at the highly unrea soned opinion piece by Aaron Rorick in Monday's Emerald (“the Greater evil,” ODE, 10/01). From the state ments of one caller to a radio talk show, he infers that the entire “working class” is uniformly consumed by mur derous hate toward Islamic extremists. He then takes an extremist position by saying that some forms of murderous hate — like that of the “most ven omous, hateful anti-Islamic Ameri can" — are morally better than other forms. But then he goes even farther afield by saying that the form of mur derous hate that he supports does not at all make him, or anyone who holds it, a “bad guy.” And finally, he wants all of us who support human rights to “rejoice” in the prospect of a coming war in Afghanistan. This left me wondering who exact ly Rorick wants to kill (does he really want to kill all Islamic extremists, no matter what they've done?), what evi dence he has against these people to justify killing them (does he need any?), and why he expects me to re joice at the current humanitarian cri sis caused by U.S. military posturing, and at the prospect of thousands of civilians who will die if the United States pursues a dedicated air war. It seems to me that sacrificing thou sands of innocent civilians to achieve political aims — even U.S. political aims — is the logic of terrorism. So I can't rejoice with Rorick, or take part in his own brand of extremism. Rev. Michael L. Spezio University Institute of Neuroscience CORRECTION The co-director of Saferide was misidentlfied in Monday’s paper ("Campus provides options for safety .' ODE, 10/01). Her name is Nikki Fancher. The Emerald regrets the error.
