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.