Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Wednesy, November 13,2002
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editors:
Salena De La Cruz, Pat Payne
Since when
have elections
become fair?
As the implications of Tuesday’s election
slowly become more clear, I thought I
would revisit the paper’s political coverage.
We received a letter (“Democratic rally
story misrepresents facts,” ODE, Nov. 6)
upset with our coverage of the Halloween
rally featuring former
President Bill Clin
ton. We struggled to
cover this event fair
ly, but it was all De
mocrats, and where’s
the balance in that?
The author’s first
point was that our
headline, “Scaring up
votes,” (ODE, Nov. 1)
could be interpreted
negatively to mean
that Clinton was us
ing “scare tactics.” We did consider that.
We chose to run the headline because the
spread also featured Republican guberna
torial candidate Kevin Mannix, so we felt
any inference would be nonpartisan.
Also, the common meaning of “scare
up” — to produce quickly or with consid
erable effort — is exactly what politicians
do in a campaign’s last days. And it was fun
because the two stump events happened
on Halloween.
MichaelJ.
Kleckner
The editor’s office
I think the headline was a line line to
walk, as is all election coverage, but the
boisterous political discussions in the of
fice testify that no ideology was overrun
ning another in our news coverage.
Of more concern to me was the authors
implication that Jan Montry, our political
reporter who covered the event, was pur
posely skewing the facts when he wrote,
“unlike Kulongoski, Bradbury focused on
personally attacking his opponent.” I saw
Montry work to write the story fairly, and I
spoke with him about it afterward. The sto
ry was his observation of the event, not a
veiled political opinion.
Granted, observation is always open to
interpretation, but what I heard from Secre
tary of State Bill Bradbury at the event was,
indeed, much more personal in tone when
contrasted to Governor-elect Ted Kulongos
kis speech. Perhaps Montry could have
made that point with a bit more subtlety.
But I disagree with the letter writer’s
opinion that Bradbury’s speech was “fo
cused” on what he wanted to do for Ore
gonians. What I heard at Mac Court was
constant repetition of the idea that the Re
publican candidates were not really mod
erates. That’s a fair message, if true, but it’s
not focused on constructive ideas.
Finally, the Emerald does not decide
who to send on an assignment based on po
litical affiliation. Journalists should be able
to cover any event fairly, and that’s one of
the reasons there are multiple editors
above a reporter: to be a check on balance
and accuracy.
I think we did have fair election coverage,
but I’d like to hear more from people who
don’t agree. Given our time and space con
straints, it was difficult to decide what races
and issues to cover. We did make sure to give
opponents in different races equal space
and positioning. We also had every county
in the state fax or e-mail their election re
sults so we could crunch our own numbers.
I just wish there had been space to cover
more issues in more detail. But I still fear
that too much election stuff— like in this
column—may make readers turn the page.
Michael J. Kleckner is the editor in chief
of the Emerald. Send your concerns
about Emerald1 coverage or content
to editor@dailyemerald.com.
Undercover hate
My first recollection ot what I considered to be a
hate crime at the University was during my fresh
man year in the residence halls. Outside two Mus
lim students’ door, some insolent fool placed Chris
tian Bibles and other fundamentalist paraphernalia
along with a note that suggested they’d go to hell if
they didn’t convert.
The two students bravely
shrugged the gesture off, but
the rest of us were morally
offended. After all, what kind
of person would have the gall
to impose their prejudices so
obviously?
Four years later, I’ve
learned that a lot of people
have carried the torch for in
tolerance. Bigotry quietly
lurks on this campus in class
rooms, e-mails and most re- Judge Julie
cently, underneath the office
doors of unassuming professors.
Students of Rob Proudfoot’s classes may already
know about the hate mail he receives every term.
Proudfoot courageously tells his classes about the
notes and asks his students to write a response. I
call this act courageous because the notes are highly
offensive to his American Indian heritage and surely
must wear on his pride, although he doesn’t show it.
The latest cryptic hate letters came in the first
week of fall term. One read, “Drop the Indian shit
... you’re a conquered people. We’re all Ameri
cans.” The note was unsigned.
A second letter stated, “Foreigners who can’t
speak English should not be allowed in this class.”
Again, the person writing did not have the back
bone to leave a name.
The hatred, fear and anger of the authors are evi
dent; so is their abject ignorance.
The author who penned the first letter should be
aware we have not gotten to a point here we can
huddle under the equality umbrella labeled “Amer
ican . ” And we’ll never reach that point until we stop
qualifying each other’s identities with prefixes like
African American, Mexican American or Japanese
American. Heck, if white people immigrated to this
country from Europe, why don’t we classify our
selves as European American and give equal oppor
tunity hyphenations to every soul on the planet?
As for the note suggesting we expunge “foreign
ers” from the University, I assume the author did
not realize international students think their na
tive counterparts are equally foreign, too. Interna
tional students and faculty are an asset to this com
munity, and I’m sick of sheltered whiners assuming
they’re worthless because some can’t articulate flu
endy in a language that isn’t even their own.
Speaking perfect English is not exacdy indica
tive of American intelligence, either; I’ve witnessed
plenty of my peers struggle to communicate prop
erly (read: like, yeah, um, you know, ain’t, anyways,
whatever!), but apparently it’s futile to slip nasty
notes about mall-speak.
I know a little bit about hate mail myself. As a
columnist, I’ve gotten e-mails over the years
praying for my soul or informing me that, “Your
brain must be full of bong resin. ... You are a
dumb bitch.” Even the furry OSU mascot, Ben
ny the Beaver, sent me a drawing depicting a
beaver suffocating a duck. Thanks for the con
structive criticism, Benny...
These items do not compare in severity with the
incidents above and arguably go with the territory
of the commentary page, but the odium behind the
comments is the same.
Who are these disgruntled torchbearers of hate?
And why don’t students hear more about these acts?
Issues of discrimination will never go away, and
neither should the discussion of them. Hate crimes
do exist on this campus. That’s easy enough to
prove. The real challenge is figuring out who is be
hind them—and more importandy, how to banish
the bigotry altogether.
Contact the columnist
at julielauderbaugh@dailyemerald.com. Her views
do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
OUS ‘DeaT works out better for students, Oregon
Guest commentary
What is “the Deal” that folks in higher education
keep talking about and what does it mean to stu
dents? I want to encourage the readers of this paper
to check it out for themselves. Please visit
http://www.ous.edu/thedeal/for the full report.
Here are some important aspects of the deal for
students to consider:
Tuition will increase, but under the deal, it is
capped by inflation and will not outpace inflation
over any three-year period. Tuition investments
will be matched by the state, unlike now. Currendy,
we pay more as students while the Legislature
slashes their financial support fairly regularly.
Instead of paying more for less, under the deal
we wui pay more nut get more rrom the University
and the state. Part of the tuition increases will go to
fund scholarships for needy students, addressing
the problem of the price-sensitivity of our most fi
nancially challenged peers.
A quality index will ensure that the University will
not simply thin the soup during financial difficulties,
spending less and less on students individually, con
tributing to such problems as huge classes and more
and more graduate students teaching classes.
Valuable investment into research will help fuel
Oregon’s new knowledge-based economy. Overall,
this has the long-term potential to increase the tax
base in this state by creating jobs and needed eco
nomic activity.
Enrollment capacity will increase to 100,000 by
2010, enabling more Oregonians to attend our state
universities, helping to create greater long-term ac
cess to higher education through our and the state’s
investments. That’s about 25,000 more students
who can get a higher education without cutting into
the costs of any one student.
Overall, I believe the deal is worthy of student
support. We, as students, have an interest in the
value of our degrees; we will take it with us, and its
perceived value will determine some of where we
go in life. “The Deal” will add value to students’
diplomas in the long run, and I voted to endorse
this proposal with that in mind. Check it out for
yourself, and if there are any questions, contact me
at psul7692@hotmail.com. If I can’t answer your
question, I will try to find someone who can.
Tim Young is a student representative on the State ~
Board of Higher Education.