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, February 12,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor
Pat Payne
Letters to the editor
Eugenics should be
considered evil
I am outraged by the guest commen
tary “Selective euthanasia can save the
world” (ODE, Feb. 7). The article re
flects badly on Peter Sur’s own charac
ter and on your publication for present
ing his views without a disclaimer.
Eugenics, a term with which Sur
seems unfamiliar but provides an ex
cellent definition for, is not a new con
cept but rather has reared its ugly head
a number of times in human history.
While its most notable incarnation was
in Nazi Germany, it has appeared in
many nations and was recently a focus
of litigation here in Oregon.
In the present climate of limitations
on human rights, eugenics is certain to
become an issue among the less toler
ant in our nation. To suggest that it de
serves consideration invites the atten
tion of political crackpots. In an era
when the term “evil” is used to describe
nearly everything outside of our own
value system, it is not too much of a
stretch to suggest this is the rare issue
to which it actually can be applied.
There is a chance, of course, that
Sur thought his piece would amuse
readers. He was wrong. Maybe, if it ap
peared in a satirical journal such as
the Comic News or The Onion. In the
Oregon Daily Emerald, it gamers un
due credibility and offers not the
slightest hint of humor.
I rarely read the Emerald. Perhaps I
should look more closely so that I know
what other students are thinking and
just whom I should avoid on campus.
Jan McCoy
third-year graduate
educational leadership
Bush lacks compassion
for minority education
In the past several weeks, we have
read that President Bush filed a brief
to the Supreme Court to block affir
mative action plans at the University
of Michigan Law School.
As an African American, I resent
this president denying the opportuni
ty for a few Americans to have an
equal education. How dare he? A man
bom with a silver spoon in his mouth,
given every opportunity to do as he
pleased, who only made it to Yale on
his daddy’s money, moved up the po
litical ranks by way of his daddy’s
money and influence — and yet he
resents a mere pittance of allowance
of entry to a few minority students.
This is a president who touts “com
passion” while attempting to shut the
door to a few minority students. This
same president is willing and eager to
send young minority and poor men
and women to fight for corporate
largess and oil.
Compassion? Give me a break!
Edwin L. Coleman
professor emeritus
English
CORRECTION
In “Students attempt to define
love" (ODE, Feb. 11), LGBTQA
volunteer Gregory Campbell
was misidentified.
The summary accompanying
the article about a toxic
groundwater plume ("Neighbors
meet to hear about toxic
groundwater,” ODE, Feb. 11)
should have said that 60 wells
were tested to discover die
shape and extent of the pi umt
not that all 60 were 1
—
.
----
So'i lTStAts GREAT 6E/A/6
ABLE To PROTEST P^51
ootTrtouT LOORRitsfer A&XATD'IMG
QU Oa|CaMA\!C
Steve Baggs Emerald
University's neutrality shows support of Iraq war
Guest commentary
University President Dave Frohn
mayer has made it clear that he did
not think it was the University’s
place to take a stance against war in
Iraq — correctly pointing out, after
all, that the University community
is not in agreement about the war.
At the Jan. 31 University Assembly
meeting, some of the faculty mem
bers concurred with Frohnmayer
and said that whether to take a
stance was a matter for individuals
to decide, individually.
Seriously, would we prefer the
cold eye of history to judge this
community of educators by its ad
herence to protocol, or by its stance
against the annihilation of an al
ready annihilated people?
The previous Gulf War was the
first all-out war the United States
had engaged in since the Vietnam
War ended some 17 years earlier. I
remember how skittish the Ameri
can people were about going into
Iraq in 1991 — the memory of
Vietnam, with its 58,000 Ameri
can soldiers dead, still burning in
our collective memory. George
Bush, the elder, was well aware of
this, too, so he delayed sending in
American ground troops until air
attacks could demolish Iraq’s mili
tary infrastructure.
The United States dropped thou
sands of bombs a day, for weeks on
end, from an altitude of 30,000 feet,
in that “remote-control” war. I can
clearly recall our military leaders
bragging about the accuracy of our
“smart bombs” being somewhere in
the range of 80 percent.
But, I wondered, if 80 percent of
the thousands of bombs dropped
daily hit their targets, where did the
other 20 percent land? Some esti
mates place the death toll of that
war in excess of 100,000 Iraqis. If
I’m not mistaken, most of those
killed were not soldiers in Saddam
Hussein’s army. Errant bombs do
not discriminate. They kill anyone
unlucky enough to be in their
paths. They kill grocers, mechan
ics, housewives, soccer players and
yes, even college students, profes
sors and administrators.
We must take a stance against
war not because we doubt that Hus
sein is a threat, but because we
know that the vast majority of
those who will be forever scarred by
war are not. The last time we went
to war with Hussein, we killed per
haps a quarter million Iraqis — and
none of them were Hussein. Isn’t
there a certain madness in that?
We should take a stance against
war at every opportunity, just as a
matter of principle. If an institu
tion of higher learning teaches us
nothing else, it should be that
rarely is killing more innocent
people the path to a lasting peace.
War breeds more war. For every
innocent person you kill, you cre
ate several new enemies.
Not taking a stance does not
prove objectivity or neutrality. Not
taking a stance implies support for
the status quo — even if that status
quo happens to be pushing for war.
Not taking a stance is tantamount
to saying that we, as a community
of educated people, support the
mass killing of thousands of inno
cent people — with the under
standing that this genocide, some
how, is a path to peace.
And how can a community of ed
ucators, whose mission statement
declares it to be striving to educate
through “a commitment to interna
tional awareness and understand
ing” and “by welcoming and guid
ing change rather than reacting to
it,” take a neutral stance?
Todd Pittman is a junior journalism
major.
White privilege allows no concerns for other races
Guest commentary
I don’t think much about my white privilege,
but given my white president’s recent criticism of
affirmative action, I must pause to appreciate
some of my advantages. One thing that is nice
about being white is that I’m not confronted by
racism all the time. I hang out with my white
friends, go to white classes, I work in a white of
fice and watch my white TV newscast, and I don’t
see racism anywhere.
The whole issue of second-class citizenship in
this country doesn’t seem to come up. I never get
pulled over because of the color of my skin. I
mean, why would I? I’m white. I don’t even know
what a “skin tax” is. Being white has never been a
reason that I’ve been denied anything.
Let’s face it: If African Americans really want
ed to make things fair, then aren’t we long over
due for a hundred years of black privilege in
America? White folks would be the servant
workforce for a while, sitting in the backs of the
buses, giving up their executive, administrative
duties until the year 2102, and then get back to
that fictitious “level playing field” we whites are
so proud of.
But we all know that a hundred years of black
privilege is not going to happen, let alone one
year. So, let’s stop talking about what would be
fair in this country. I’m not giving up my green
light privileges, not for civil rights, not for equal
ity or affirmative action.
The University of Michigan’s attempt to give
advantages to non-white students threatens the
status quo. This small symbolic gesture to level
the playing field against white privilege status —
and give some black students their only chance
to have advantages over whites — becomes an
easy legislative target. With the president’s help,
the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to
do away with affirmative action at universities,
just as it was taken off the books at California
schools a few years ago.
To be white is to remain exempt from con
cerns outside of my own race and to say that af
firmative action is not my fight. I don’t have to
ask any of the non-white students here on cam
pus if they’ve gotten less opportunities than I
have. I don’t have to question why it is that some
work twice as hard for things that have come
easier for me. I can take my white privilege and
cash it in for all that it is worth, and never won
der how I have been so fortunate. In fact, I don’t
have to feel fortunate at all.
And when my children and grandchildren ask
why non-whites get less than we do, I can say
that is just the way it’s always been here in
America. I just don’t have to feel guilty for it. To
be white is to remain exempt from concerns out
side my own race and to say that affirmative ac
tion is not my fight.
All I have to do to insure the future of white
privilege status is to do nothing; the rest will
take care of itself. Thus affirmative action will
be no more, and that is the power of your
white privilege.
Jason Blei lives in Eugene.