Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 25, 2001)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com Online Edition: ww^w. dailyemerald. com Editor in Chief: Jessica Blanchard Managing Editor: Michael J. Kleckner Editorial Editor: Julie Lauderbaugh Assistant Editorial Editor: Jacquelyn Lewis To save money, OSU needs to put focus on strengths Projected job and academic cuts at Oregon State University — the result of an estimated $19 million budget shortfall — are unfortu nate. OSU is suffering from the effects of an ailing economy and rising costs, and now the uni versity will likely let those effects trickle down to stu dents and faculty as they attempt to remedy the situa tion. To get through these difficult financial times, OSU should focus on maintaining their most successful departments, such as agriculture and engineering, instead of funding smaller liberal arts departments that are forced to compete with the University of Oregon. In turn, our university should focus its lim ited resources on maintaining and improving our liberal arts programs so that both schools are not forced to compete with each other for enrollment or statewide recognition. If the state of Oregon wants the two universities to have the resources to compete academically, legisla tors need to be more vigilant about appropriating funds to the Oregon University System. It is not pos sible to keep smaller departments and big-name spe cialty schools afloat in the slowing economy if tax payers are unwilling to pony up enough for all academic departments. Another thought: Perhaps OSU should rethink its stake in its Cascades Campus, the Eastern Oregon branch plan. If the school is being forced to cut jobs and departments at the main campus, it doesn’t make fiscal sense to continue with plans for an ex pansion in Bend at this time. The Oregon University System also might need to reconsider which univer sity is presently better poised to expand on the other side of the Cascades if OSU is unwilling to forgo its hard-won branch campus. The Oregon University System should advise administrators in Corvallis to put off the plans for another year, or at least until the ailing economy begins to recover. Editorial Board Members Jessica Blanchard editor-in-chief MichaeU. Kfeckner managing editor Gabe Shaughnessy community representative Julie tauderbaugh editorial page editor Jacquelyn Lewis assistant editorial editor Grant Lefiler community representative Thomas Patterson newsroom representative Steve Baggs Emerald University hypocrisy is not essential The University traditionally prides itself on its nationally recognized image as one of the most progres sive schools in the nation. At least, when it's convenient. The effects of al cohol use are highly publicized on cam pus, and the University contributes funds to services such as health work shops for those with alcohol-related problems, Designated Driver Shuttle and activities such as the recent “Party House,” which was set up to show students the nega tive side of drink ing. When it comes to nicotine, the University is a hypocrite, actually making money off selling students an addictive drug. The educational Columnist entity whose main concern is sup posed to be for our well-being and suc cess obviously prefers the $103,686 it made last year from tobacco sales to the scary fact it's the only Pacific-10 Con ference school that sells tobacco on campus. It's not as if the University doesn't realize that tobacco is responsi ble for more suffering and death than all other illegal and legal substances com bined, or that it is the No. 1 cause of pre mature death in the United States (ac cording to biology professor V. Pat Lombardi). The University is even aware that smoking is the utmost risky health behavior for students, according to the results of a 1994 University Health Center Survey. So why is the University spending money to corroborate the fact smoking can kill and that students are at a high risk, or setting up programs such as Smoking Cessation through the Peer Health Education Program, when packs of smokes will continue to be sold at the EMU's Erb Essentials Store? Obviously, the peace of mind that would come with knowing the Univer sity isn't directly contributing to the pollution of its students’ lungs just isn't worth giving up the income it’s making from Joe Camel's favorite "death stick." With 7.5 percent of total EMU food service sales (and a third of Erb Essen tials sales) coming from tobacco prod ucts, maybe we should rename the little store "Herb Essentials." EMU Food Services Director John Costello claims that if the store got rid of tobacco products, they could also lose corollary food sales from people buying cigarettes. Maybe John doesn't understand that nicotine is an appetite suppressant, and that students who didn't have easy access to a cigarette might buy some munchies to keep their mouths busy. Maybe students will just make the trek to 7-11 if they're craving a little nicotine buzz before class — though it's highly doubtful they'll hoof the extra blocks during a ten-minute break be tween classes. I'm not naive enough to suggest that the University ceasing to sell tobacco is going to cause students everywhere to drop the habit. However, it’s pretty clear to me that it's entirely unethical for the University to be profit ing from tobacco sales and supporting tobacco companies. Oregon State University doesn't sell tobacco products on school grounds, and they aren't griping over the money they aren't making. Of course, Corvallis also went smoke-free years before Eugene did. Maybe we should re-evaluate just how health-conscious Eugene really is. Rebecca Newell is a columnist for the Emerald. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald. Reach her at rebeccanewell@dailyemerald.com. Advocate truth about worldwide territorial conquest In “Columbus Day needs to serve as a reminder” (ODE, 10/08), the Emerald editorial board wrote that "everyone needs to be taught the truth about our country's origin, no matter how difficult the conversation may be." The idea was that Colum bus Day is one of those examples where we tend to glorify some thing that wasn't entirely pretty. Agreed, but if real educational progress in this context is to occur, we need to do more than just show the consequences of how one group of conquistadors affected any given pre-existing culture or cultures. From a knowledge standpoint, the problem with using dates like 1492 is that it makes us inclined to ignore what was going on in affect ed places before these times. An implied suggestion concur rently emerges when we overdo this: that this (enter date here) is when real “history” begins in cer tain regions. This creates a funda mentally flawed presentation that may be convenient if one's goal is to create a simplistic dichotomy of victims and aggressors, but rarely if ever does it advance the discus sion in truly relevant terms. The fact of the matter is that con quest is not a European invention, which this kind of arbitrary dating tends to imply. For centuries, if not millennia, prior to the arrival of Columbus, the same phenomenon was occurring in the Americas, as it was in Africa, where the practice Guest Commentary Mark Grant of slavery — which continues to day — is thousands of years old. In this context all “civilizations” are equally responsible for what may be regarded as imperialistic crimes against humanity. It makes ab solutely no sense to select one so ciety over all others when engag ing in such a discussion. The modern tendency in this re gard is that one should only bash Europe and the United States while ignoring the similar histo ries of all other empires and tribes. There's really no valid moral logic to this kind of politically correct approach. When taken too far, the practice amounts to pseudo-schol arship, not because of what is called to our attention but because of what we are subtly encouraged to ignore. How ironic that this double standard is often imposed upon the student body, even in America, by so many of her own educators. Considering these educators’ knowledge of the truer picture of human history, one wonders what they hope to accomplish in en couraging such a biased fixation against these “white, male-domi nated” societies. (Of course, it may be that many of these teachers real ly don't have a clue about the big ger scenario, i.e., maybe they never actually thought about what life in North America was like before 1492, for example.) Personally, I would change the editorial's suggestion, by suggest ing that, “Everyone, in all nations, need to be taught the truth about territorial conquest as an ancient and worldwide phenomenon.” This isn't to encourage moral equivocation but to promote the kind of relevant discussion that I think the Emerald is advocating. This is a serious subject and one that we should all take a good hard look at, but in doing so, let's ap proach the whole matter seriously — and honestly. Mark Grant, Class of '85, graduated with an international studies degree.
