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.