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
Wednesday, January 8,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor
Pat Payne
Letters to the editor
Bush doesn’t
support family planning
The Bush administration’s recent de
cision to back out of an international
agreement — this time an agreement
made between 189 countries around the
world to provide poor women with family
planning and reproductive health servic
es — reveals a blatant disregard for hu
man life and the true extent of the presi
dent’s shift to the right and away from the
moderate views held by most Americans.
The agreement the president is now
preparing to abandon grew out of a
worldwide recognition that rapid popula
tion growth in developing countries was
undermining economic development
and exacerbating the grinding poverty in
which billions of people live. And it de
termined that improving women’s access
to education, to economic opportunities,
and to civic life — as well as to family
planning and related health services —
was the best way to address these prob
lems. This is just the latest step in a long
series of attacks on women’s health and
family planning.
Earlier this year, the president decid
ed to eliminate all funds for the United
Nations Population Fund — an organiza
tion leading the effort to provide poor
women in developing countries with
quality reproductive health care and
family planning services. This despite
strong bipartisan support in Congress
and the recommendation of the presi
dent’s own fact-finding team. While a
small minority of outspoken extremists
has captured the president’s ear on this
issue, the vast majority of Americans —
Republicans, Democrats, and Indepen
dents — support family planning. More
than half a million women die every year
from pregnancy related causes — nearly
all of them preventable with quality re
productive health care.
Aren’t their lives more important than
the whims of a handful of anti-family
planning extremists?
Albert Kaufman
Portland
‘Hate' should
prompt contract review
University administrators will be
meeting in June to consider whether to
renew the University’s controversial
contract with radio station KUGN-AM.
Hopefully, concerned parties will take a
good look at the University’s mission
statement and two of its key principles:
tolerance and respect.
It is important to note that this is not
an issue of censorship. This is about
whether the University should continue
a high-profile business relationship that
juxtaposed with its stated mission prin
ciples reeks of hypocrisy.
What is “hate radio”? Some would
have you believe that it is simply an air
ing of controversial issues with some
hosts who push the edge a bit. In reality,
it is unrelenting character assassination,
ridicule and demonization of anyone
whose philosophy differs from the ex
treme right-wing persuasion. It routinely
bashes minorities and women.
A favorite pastime for Michael Savage
and Michael Medved is homeless bash
ing: Savage, on April 4, talked about
“forcing the homeless to eat geese until
they gag.” Medved often refers to the
homeless as “human trash” and “scum.”
If these themes were occasional, or
perhaps tongue-in-cheek, it might dimin
ish the conflict of interest. Unfortunate
ly, this is not the case. These are recur
ring and incessant mantras. So when
Michael Savage says “(Senator Joseph)
McCarthy was 100 percent right.... Mc
Carthy was a hero,” (March 28) and
Turn to Letters, page 3
Steve Baggs Emerald
Conservative voices bring necessary
balance to ‘liberal’ college education
Guest commentary
I am writing in regard to an issue
that has come up in the past few
weeks both here at the University
and at other campuses across the
country. The issue is that of politi
cal ideology and the conservative
minority at many universities.
There has been a lot of talk about
biases against conservatives at uni
versities. At other campuses, it has
been brought out that political mi
norities are not given any protec
tion that other groups enjoy.
Here at the University, the issue
of grading based on political views
and not quality of work has come
up. In addition, the issue has arisen
of whether a radio station that
broadcasts a politically biased radio
show should be allowed to use the
University’s image.
I would like praise the people
that are bringing these issues up.
No matter what a person’s point of
view, they should have a right to be
heard. It is wrong that some would
prevent conservatives from voicing
their opinion. I know that my polit
ical ideology and views are not all
correct, and just the same the left is
not always right.
What is right is to allow both
views to come out and be heard,
and through that we can advance
society. At Amherst College in
Massachusetts, they chose to create
student senate seats that were
based on underrepresented minori
ties. Every group that applied was
granted a seat except for conserva
tives. Now this wouldn’t change the
balance of power or anything like
that; it would simply have given a
voice to an underrepresented
group. Why not give these people a
voice? Even if it is little heard, it is
better than being silenced.
Here at the University, it has
been brought out that many con
servative students feel like they get
graded down for putting conserva
tive views in papers. The Emerald’s
advice column suggests that con
servative students should avoid
putting their political views in pa
pers. Is that fair to repress one’s
voice because it doesn’t coincide
with the majority?
Also here at the University, there
has been much talk about not allow
ing KUGN-AM to call themselves
“the voice of the Ducks” because
they broadcast Michael Savage’s con
servative radio program. People
should be proud that the voice of the
Ducks can be associated with allow
ing all views to be presented. Even
our “teach-ins” are not educating if
they come from one point of view.
I know that the University is a
liberal university, and I came here,
if not for anything else, to see and
be exposed to the other side. As a
result, some of my views have be
come more liberal, and others are
now more conservative.
Our political views should be dy
namic and not static. This can only
happen through seeing a good rep
resentation of differing views.
Rather than condemning the ex
pression of a conservative voice, we
should be praising it for its balanc
ing effect. Just the same, conserva
tive universities should praise liber
al voices for adding an element of
balance. If we shut out one point of
view, no matter what that point of
view is, at the University, we be
come ignorant and not educated. I
assume that by coming to college,
we all want to be educated.
Greg McNeill is a senior major
in political science.
Editor’s note: This piece was
submitted before KUGN’s decision
to stop carrying Michael Savage.
Conscientious shopping does support economy
Guest commentary
This is in response to Julie Lauderbaugh’s
commentary (“Let your conscience be your
shopping guide,” ODE, Dec. 4).
I am growing increasingly frustrated that
Americans such as Lauderbaugh feel that to not
shop and/or to question an economic machine
that has little regard for environmental degrada
tion or labor exploitation is inherently un-Amer
ican. 1 feel this is a misconception.
I am also frustrated at the current belief that
terrorists are targeting our wealth. I have yet to
hear any terrorist statement that targeted my
country’s wealth, but rather what we do with our
wealth in the form of our foreign policies that of
ten have consequences including death. (Exam
pies include continued support of an often brutal
Israeli occupation or sanctions in Iraq that have
led to the deaths 500,000 children).
However one feels about such policies, it is im
portant for Americans to not confuse the issue.
We are being attacked because of our policies
and actions, not because we are wealthy.
Yet, I agree with Lauderbaugh about our econ
omy. I am perhaps more disturbed by those who
would suggest not supporting an economy at all.
I feel this serves no purpose in either strength
ening our nation, or even promoting good caus
es. Rather, I would propose what I thought the
title of her commentary was leading to: con
sumerism with a conscience.
It is not an all-or-nothing game. There is a
middle ground, in the form of supporting local
economies through venues such as the Eugene
Saturday and Holiday markets, or even larger
companies such as Patagonia. There are many
companies and products that seek to find a bal
ance between conscience and capitalism.
Thus, I would submit to you and your read
ers: Do let your conscience be your shopping
guide, but educate yourself on how to make in
formed shopping decisions that not only leave
your conscience care-free, but support the
economy at all levels.
For this concerned consumer, to not question
what I perceive as injustices, inequalities and ex
ploitation by my government a^d our economic
system would be truly un-American.
Thank you for this opportunity to engage in
this forum.
Joseph R. Snyder is a fifth-year graduate student
in architecture/historic preservation.