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:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Wednesday, June 5,2002
Editorial
Brooklyn, Nair'syear
began with full plate,
ended in mediocrity
Former ASUO Executives Nil
da Brooklyn and Joy Nair
have had a long year, and we
are thankful new ASUO Execs
Rachel Pilliod and Ben Buzbee
are now working to pick up the
slack from this year’s mediocre
student body leaders. The former
executives did make some head
way on their original campaign
promises — namely by reducing,
but not eliminating, the student
energy fee. All things considered,
Brooklyn and Nair’s reign met
with fair success at times, but the
pair did not live up to our expec
tations as student leaders.
The ASUO’s “Doin’ it in the
Dark” campaign had limited inter
est from students, but it was a
small victory for the ASUO office.
Brooklyn and Nair were able to re
duce the $30 energy fee in fall term
to $20 winter term and $15 spring
term. But all of the Exec’s public
promotion of conservation and the
elimination of the fee seemed to
disappear six months ago, after the
first reduction. And the original
campaign promise was to elimi
nate the $30 fee altogether.
We were also disappointed with
other campaign promises that
were not met during the course of
the year. Brooklyn and Nair’s orig
inal platform included creating a
housing code for Eugene, improv
ing the residence halls and reach
ing out to average students
through the ASUO.
Brooklyn and Nair did some
vague work to create a housing
code but appeared to give up on
the project after they had invested
so much energy in conservation
efforts. They ended the year with
out a formal draft of the code for
the city of Eugene or an outline of
their accomplishments for their
successors to pick up where they
left off.
Residence hall standards were
hardly promoted after the pair
entered office and the current
executives don’t have any guide
lines or suggestions to continue
the project. Residence halls con
tinue to decline in livability, but
the executives failed to make hous
ing improvements a top priority.
All of the ASUO Exec candi
dates for 2002-2003 election criti
cized Brooklyn and Nair’s accessi
bility. At the Emerald, many
reporters also experienced diffi
culty reaching the women, and
they were infamous for declining
comment for stories or simply not
returning phone calls.
The executives’ office never fin
ished completing the ASUO
Green Tape Notebook during the
year, a main administrative duty
of the ASUO president and vice
president. The incoming execu
tives will have to pick up the
slack on that project as well, even
though Brooklyn and Nair should
have completed the notebook
months ago.
The pair did make connections
with several key student leaders
in unions but had no impact on
the majority of average students.
Brooklyn said herself that she
wished she had been able to en
gage more people in the ASUO
during her tenure.
Brooklyn and Nair did make
progress in registering students to
vote. Voters, especially student
voters, are notoriously difficult to
motivate. With so much voter apa
thy, it was amazing 10 tickets
emerged during the ASUO elec
tion this year.
We were taken aback by Brook
lyn and Nair’s enormous sign that
gave a countdown of days they
had left in office. The “Getting the
fuck out countdown” was so big,
it dwarfed all of the other fliers in
their office. With an exit so un
graceful, we wonder if they had
good intentions at the start but be
came jaded in the end.
Overall, we saw Brooklyn and
Nair make their biggest strides in
fall term, but we thought they
rested on their laurels for the rest
of the year. We hope future execu
tives learn from their mistakes,
and the mistakes of many past
executives — pick a few tangible
issues that have a real measure of
success and go after them. Making
campaign promises is a way to get
elected, but taking on too many
projects at once can come back to
haunt executives in the end.
CLARIFICATION
Monday's commentary (“Rewarding achievement with celebrity," OOE, June 3) incorrectly
identified Rose Festival participants as princesses. The correctterm is ambassadors.
Steve Baggs Emerald
Diversity action affirms all races
|his is in response to Jeff Oliver’s May 29 col
umn entitled “Judging people by the color
JL of their skin. ” Oliver’s letter is a well-inten
tioned, though desperately uninformed, attempt
to discredit the notion of racial/ethnic diversity in
favor of universal acceptance. While I have many
issues with the views Oliver expresses, let me
start with three things I think he gets right:
• “Diversity” is a university “buzzword.”
Agreed. It has become a mantra we in campus set
tings have repeated so often that we increasingly
fail to engage its true meaning and purpose.
• You “can’t judge people on the color of their
skin and expect to succeed.” Right again. In a
deeply racialized society, all of us must constant
ly strive to break free from our essentialist under
standing of“race.”
• White Americans are all too often assumed to
be monolithic (i.e., “non-diverse”) simply be
cause they’re white. Bingo. Bigotry and prejudice
have no color (though I might remind Oliver that
the tendency to prejudge on the basis of skin color
is a crucial element of racial oppression that has
served Anglos extremely well).
That being said, I must express extreme disap
pointment with Oliver’s woefully under-re
searched views on affirmative action in college
admissions, especially as applied by the Univer
sity of Michigan. I worked for Michigan’s Office
of Undergraduate Admissions for two years, and
never once did I deny admission to a student be
cause they were white, nor did I ever say anything
like, “Great, this kid’s black. The heck with his
GPA.” The fact is, Mr. Oliver, that affirmative ac
tion in admissions — the policy which seeks to
increase racial and ethnic diversity on college
campuses — isn’t just for students of color. Look
around your next class and witness what affirma
tive action has done for white women. Forty years
ago, women were a novelty in American universi
ties: now they constitute better than 53 percent of
the University student body. You tell me if affir
Guest Commentary
Tomas
Hulick
mative action has not worked for white women.
Moving to the issue of geographical diversity,
Oliver smugly states that his background as a
middle-class Midwesterner who grew up on a
cul-de-sac brings an element of diversity to the
University, thereby showing that we cannot de
fine diversity and its benefits solely on the basis
of skin color. Guess what: He’s right, and affirma
tive action policies at Michigan and elsewhere are
designed to benefit students from underrepre
sented recruitment territories. As a Michigan re
cruiter, it gave me great pleasure to visit students
at some of the “whitest,” most rural high schools
you could imagine and inform them that, in the
interest of campus diversity, I could use affirma
tive action policies to help them get into one the
country’s most competitive universities. Think
any of these farm kids complained about racial in
justice when I sent them an admit letter? Not
once.
Jeff Oliver’s central theme — that we cannot
judge people by the color of their skin — is laud
able. Nevertheless, the oft-repeated “skin color
doesn’t matter” axiom falls flat when students of
color are burdened every day by subtle and not
so-subtle messages of alienation and exclusion. If
Oliver believes that students of color on campus
have been granted admission due to the color of
their skin, then one can not help but wonder if he
thinks we belong here at all.
Incidentally, I can assure you, Mr. Oliver, that if
you applied to Michigan I would never have de
nied you for being white. Ignorant, yes. White, no.
Tomas Hulick Baiza is the University assistant director
of admissions for multicultural recruitment.
Letter to the editor
Not everyone has super-white skin
I’m writing about the recent article “Blister In
The Sun” (ODE, May 29). It seemed to me like the
Emerald was supposing that almost everyone has
the super-white northern European skin type that
cannot handle the sun.
I believe at least some of us evolved under the
sun and consequently not only can handle sun,
but require it for physiological balance. And this
includes the ultraviolet light as well.
Have you ever heard of studies by Dr. Ott? I
think he found that UV light is necessary in order
for some hormonal balance in our bodies. If I al
ways wear sunglasses, my vision will become
weak, and I may be more depressed. My eyes will
not know how to deal with the natural sunlight so
essential for life on this planet. Maybe the Emer
ald should print an article on this topic as well.
My main concern was the fact that the article
seemed to neglect people that do not burn (usual
ly) and people with pigmented skin. Will I live 10
years longer if I wear manmade chemicals on my
skin everyday? Maybe the Emerald could also
look into naturally occurring sunscreens. Thanks
for listening, and please, the sun is not evil.
Guru Rattan Khalsa
sophomore
environmental studies