Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemeralcl.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Fridayjune 7,2002
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Yesteryear's Editorial
Questions
remain on
research-park
plan
Editor’s note: This editorial was written in re
sponse to the community’s proposal to build a
Riverfront Research Park. After lengthy delibera
tions, a master plan for the park was approved in
1988, and the first building was dedicated in 1992.
Currently, the park is home to several University
and non-University research and technology pro
grams, including the Office of Research Services
and Acacia International, Inc.
Throughout the 1970s, Oregon, and Eugene in
particular, developed a reputation for being
anti-business. Late Gov. Tom McCall publicly
stated his opposition to new businesses locating in
the state, while the state Legislature developed one
of the most stringent land-use programs in the
country.
But with the statewide unem
ployment rate hovering around
10 percent, Oregonians have at
tempted to earnestly develop
the state’s industrial sector.
The proposed Riverfront Re
search Park, which is a joint ef
fort by the University, the city of
Eugene and local businesses, is
one example of this effort.
Proponents of the park, which would be located
on land adjacent to the Willamette River, argue that
the faculty will pump thousands of dollars into the
Oregon economy, while creating hundreds of new
jobs. They also say it will enhance the University’s
reputation as a leading national research facility.
In other towns, projects of this size have tradi
tionally raised community excitement to such new
heights that community leaders have bent over
backwards to ensure the project’s success. City
councils conduct uninspired hearings, land-use
bodies waive many of their rules, and it all hap
pens so fast that potential opponents are given lit
tle time to organize.
University
of Oregon
125th
ANNIVERSARY
Originally
published on
June 6,1985
we nope mat me nugene uity council ana Mayor
Brian Obie will consider all of the park’s ramifica
tions before they give it their full support. There are
many questions to be considered.
The University, which will lease to park devel
opers about 80 percent of the facility’s land, must
place a stipulation in the lease outlawing any clas
sified research.
A university should not be a branch office for the
Department of Defense. We are not in the business of
developing weapons. Similarly, no University land
should be used for such research.
We hope that University President Paul Olum will
fight for this stipulation in any lease, because once
the land is leased out, we will have very little con
trol over that lease.
We must also ask: Who will have ultimate control
for ensuring the community’s safety in case of a ma
jor accident at the park? Will the park increase pollu
tion levels in the Willamette River? If yes, then what
will be the nature of the pollutants?
Eugene must attract new businesses. Anyone who
has recently looked for work in Eugene knows this
to be true.
When people are unemployed the tax base
shrinks and the community cannot provide ade
quate services. But this does not mean that we
should prostitute ourselves to any new business
that offers to locate in our community. Instead, we
must carefully examine the pluses and the minuses
offered by any new business.
This editorial was taken from the June 6,1985, edition
of the Oregon Daily Emerald.
Equal rights includes checking boxes
J'eff Oliver’s commentary “Judging
people by the color of their skin”
(ODE, May 29) was short-sighted
d disappointing. In response to the
University of Michigan law school’s ad
missions policy, which allows the ap
plicant’s race to be used as one of sever
al deciding factors, Oliver argued that
“just because a student checks a differ
ent box on their application form does
n’t mean she has experience any more
valuable than anyone else’s.” This
statement is entirely untrue. If a student
checks a box other than “white,” and if
“she” checks a box other than “male,”
the student has the experience of being
a member of groups that have been de
prived of equal opportunity since the
founding of this country. Moreover, the
student has the experience of being a
member of a group immensely under
represented in universities, law schools
and our nation’s legislature.
Oliver relied on a Webster’s Dictio
nary and the act of checking boxes in
defining diversity and denouncing affir
mative action. But the real issue goes far
beyond these simple examples. Diversi
ty isn’t just good for “improving the
quality of education,” as Oliver suggest
ed. When a school prides itself in its di
Guest Commentary
Vivian
Vassall
versity, it prides itself in offering mi
norities a chance they were never given
before. There has been one black gover
nor in U.S. history. And needless to say,
there has never been a U.S. president
that was anything but a white male.
What Oliver doesn’t realize is that white
males have privilege. They don’t have
to be afraid of going to small towns or
rural areas. They don’t have to be afraid
of going to college and not fitting in be
cause of the color of their skin. They
don’t have to be afraid of sharing their
dreams of attending law school or be
coming a leader.
In order to evolve from the disgraceful
status quo, people like Oliver need to
look outside of themselves for a moment.
They should stop feeling threatened by
affirmative action or intimidated by the
all-inclusive ethnic student unions. The
only reason these institutions exist is to
educate and progress without being hin
dered by conservative skeptics. In order
to get to a point where universities can be
colorblind, they need initially to strive to
be colorful. And this requires giving mi
norities a chance to attend college when
they most likely have parents and grand
parents who couldn’t get a higher educa
tion and thus couldn’t provide funds and
preparation necessary for their children.
If colleges ignore race in the admis
sions process, they ignore the inequali
ties that still exist in America. The
problem of racial discrimination won’t
fix itself, and if denied or disregarded,
will not change. Women and people of
color, being fewer in numbers, have to
be allowed in by those in the powerful
majority. The Civil Rights movement
would not have been so successful if it
weren’t for white liberals who were
willing to give minorities a chance. For
some, the boxes they check are doors
that, if opened, can liberate them from
oppression and completely transform
the leadership of our nation.
I know that Mr. Oliver, who was the
TA for my ethnic studies FIG, is a good
hearted individual. But it won’t be un
til people who share his beliefs stop
thinking in their self-interest that we
will be able to achieve diversity.
Vivian Vassall is a freshman pre-journalism major.
Peter Utsey Emerald
Letters to the editor
Don’t disrupt the parties
The epicenter of last Friday night’s
party/riot was only a couple of blocks
from my apartment, and truth to tell, I
slept right through it.
Actually, being a somewhat “nontra
ditional” student, I don’t go to parties
anymore. I hate getting drunk, and I’ve
gotten shy about smoking my young fel
low students’ dope without reciprocat
ing, which I am almost never able to do
anymore — who’d sell to an old geezer
like me? Still, I have some questions.
Why should a pleasant gathering of
well-behaved young people, who are
doing nothing worse than getting
drunk and peaceably stoned, be hec
tored by some officious cop with a bull
horn and told to “disperse” at 11:30 of a
fine Friday night? What gives him the
right? And if it comes to that, why not
throw bottles at him? Seems like a nat
ural impulse to me.
Douglas Snow
senior
romance languages
Partygoers must respect
neighbors’ rights
In virtually every discussion about
undergraduate partying and rioting off
campus, one of the most important el
ements is missing. The police do not
simply show up at parties. They are
there because someone has called them
in response to obnoxious, disruptive
and/or illegal behavior. Neighbors in
my area have endured students urinat
ing in their yards, broken beer bottles,
massive amounts of litter, walls vibrat
ing with loud music, cars speeding
down streets and more during student
parties, large and small. Our peace in
our homes, our children’s sleep and
our pets’ safety have been marginalized
by selfish, self-centered, spoiled under
graduates who have no perspective on
the effects of their behavior on others.
This is not an issue about big, bad
police that won’t let anyone have any
fun. It is about highly disruptive behav
ior that negatively impacts the perma
nent residents of some terrific neigh
borhoods. While there is no “right to
party,” as some undergraduates would
advocate, homeowners do have the
right to peaceful enjoyment of their
homes and property, and there are laws
to protect those rights. When students
trample on those rights with large, loud
gatherings, we will call the police to
break up those events. When this hap
pens, the partygoers are in the wrong,
not the police.
Jane Steckbeck
Eugene