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
—-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor.
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor.
Pat Payne
Friday, February 21,2003
Share your view on
the war resolution
Next Friday, the University Assembly will meet to hear and
possibly vote on a resolution opposing war with Iraq. The
meeting, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the Student Recreation Cen
ter, is something of a historic occasion. Rarely before has the
assembly called itself together with legislative authority to
take up an issue of critical importance to the world, the nation
and each of us individually.
In recognition of the importance of this event and the need
for critical discourse between those in favor of such a resolu
tion and those opposed, all next week
the Emerald will open the Commentary
page to opinions about the resolution
and the meeting.
Whether the assembly should take a
stance on the issue and whether opposi
tion to war is the correct stance to take
are important questions in which every
member of the campus community has a
stake. Let the community know what you
think — this decision needs dialogue.
Guest commentaries can be short or
long. Please just keep in mind the Emer
ald’s limitations.
Submissions can be no longer than 550
words, and opinions of 250 words or less will be run as letters
to the editor. Writers must include name, address and phone
number for verification purposes. Submissions dropped off in
person will need a legal form of identification for verification
purposes. If you submit something and we call you to verify it,
please return the call quickly so that we have a better chance
of getting it in the paper by next Friday.
To get you started, a guest commentary and a letter to the
editor on the topic are printed in today’s paper. Additionally,
here’s my opening salvo.
The assembly absolutely should pass the proposed resolu
tion. I’m opposed to this war because it won’t achieve disarma
ment, and instead it will lessen our national and personal secu
rity by encouraging those who see America as a violent bully.
It’s because of this contradiction and threat to our safety
that the University must stand against this war. And I don’t
think such a resolution will change the tenor of discourse in
the classroom any more than any other stance taken by the
University has.
The state of Oregon’s position that universities can consider
nothing other than cost when choosing outside contractors is
overtly political, and it could create a “hostile environment”
for those opposed to sweatshop labor. But it doesn’t and it has
n’t, because our professors, by and large, value discourse and a
diversity of thought.
That’s my opinion; please tell us what you think.
MichaelJ.
Kleckner
The editor's office
Contact the editor in chief at editor@dailyemerald.com.
His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
SADDAM f FIRST I'M
GONNA RIP YOUR, HEART
OUTAND FEED IT TAYA,
THEN IU FORNICATE WITH
YOUR LOVELY WOMEN f
THE TEAM IS ON THE GROUND,SIR.
YOU THINK THEY'LL SCAKE SADDAM
OUT OF IRAQ ?
IF THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE THAT
ftXJLD SCARE SADDAM INTO EXILE,
TACKD AND TYSON,
urs
Peter Utsey Emerald
Keep absolute statements to yourself
Guest commentary
I read with a combination of bemuse
ment and disdain “University’s neutral
ity shows support of Iraq war,” (ODE,
Feb. 12), and felt compelled to respond
as a member of this campus and the
surrounding community.
What seems ironic to me is the willing
ness Todd Pittman has to assert an opin
ion not held by everyone on this campus
as though it were embraced and accepted
as the norm, and yet the rapidity with
which he would deny this University the
right to take the opposing position. It
leads me to a conclusion that I have per
sonally held for quite some time: That
democracy, in its purest form, its both in
herently evil and untrustworthy.
Let me ask you, Mr. Pittman, had Ore
gon, via the voters, approved Measure 13
— in case your pre-candescent memory
has failed you, this is the measure spon
sored by the OCA that would have made
it illegal to discuss homosexuality in the
classroom — would you have nodded
your head and acknowledged the majori
ty’s right to determine such a position?
1 think not. You would have com
plained, bellyached and screamed that
it was not the state’s place to make such
a statement, and you would have been
right. We live in a constitutional repub
lic, whose rule of law is set up in such a
way that the minority is protected from
the savagery and passion that often
times accompanies the majority. You
very rightly pointed out that as far as
the Iraqi war issue is concerned, it is
one “that the University community is
not in agreement.” If this is the case,
how dare you assert the right to speak
on everyone’s behalf when you have
openly acknowledged that yours is not
a view shared by everyone?
Are you now claiming that there are,
in fact, absolute rights and wrongs? Be
ware the dangers of such a stance, sir,
for it would readily place you In the
same court and arena as the Christian
right, a place I am confident, you would
not like to find yourself.
In concluding* let me ask.you ;a very
simple question. Pretend for a moment
that you were born and raised in a con
servative state somewhere in the Mid
west, and because of economic reasons
were forced to attend a conservative
state university in that area. Let us as
sume you were passionately against the
war with Iraq, but then the campus vot
ed, your view was soundly defeated and
the University took an official pro-war
position. Would you be at all comfort
able with this, as a taxpayer and stu
dent? I think not. Given that, then, how
can you presume to make such a moral
statement on behalf of the entire Uni
versity campus?
Scott Austin lives in Eugene.
Letters to the editor
Local papers miss
athletic story
“Faculty aims to slow athletics
‘arms race’” (ODE, Feb. 17) caught
the editors of The Register-Guard
and The Oregonian with their pants
down. Both commercial newspapers
have chosen to protect their inter
ests in the college game by ignoring a
story that could develop into the
most significant about sports in the
past century.
While praise is due the Emerald,
they also made a serious mistake
— not in a fact, but in burying the
big story near the bottom of the ar
ticle. Not until the 27th paragraph
was reference made to the fact that
the big boys — university boards of
trustees — finally have recognized
the problem of excessive athletics
spending, and will address it at
meetings with faculty senate lead
ers and the NCAA.
If those who control education
purse strings — administration and
trustees — don’t take serious action
soon, college sport is headed over
the cliff of financial and moral disas
ter. The city newspapers ignored the
story, even though it was featured
(with deserved recognition to Uni
versity faculty) in The New York
Times exactly a month before the
Emerald article. It also appeared in a
recent issue of The Chronicle of
Higher Education.
We’ll need to count on the Emer
ald staying on top of the story, while
self-serving editors of the commer
cial press persist in ignoring a major
story until it explodes in their faces.
George Beres
Eugene
Column sheds light
on Iraq threat
I just wanted to say that I really
enjoyed “Time for action against
Iraq” (ODE, Feb. 17), and while
reading it, I was reminded of the elo
quent words of Tony Blair in a
speech in Glasgow, Scotland, on Sat
urday. At one point, Blair said, “At
every stage, we should seek to avoid
war. But if the threat cannot be re
moved peacefully, please let us not
fall for the delusion that it can be
safely ignored.”
Salena De La Cruz’s conclusion
was as forceful and well-put as the al
ways straight-talking Secretary' of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said
on Jan. 15: “Let me go back to what’s
been going on up on the Hill. They
have been trying to connect the dots
about Sept. 11. What did somebody
know? How did it happen? Was
there some way to stop it and save
the lives of those 3,000 people?
“In the case of Iraq, the task is to
connect the dots before there’s a
smoking gun. If there’s a smoking
gun, and it involves weapons of mass
destruction, it is a lot of people dead;
not 3,000, but multiples of that.”
Her column very neatly and con
cisely summed up why it is so urgent
that the threat posed by Saddam
Hussein and his addiction to
weapons of mass destruction be
dealt with once and for all. I think
her excellent column today will go
some distance in helping the anti
war crowd understand just what is at
stake here.
Sean Walston
sixth-year graduate
physics
Eugenics proposal
should prompt action
In 1729, Jonathan Swift pub
lished “A Modest Proposal.” The
pamphlet concerned a plan to sell
poor Irish Catholic babies into a
meat market to feed rich land own
ers. The satirical piece was address
ing the overwhelming poverty and
unemployment of his countrymen.
Probably to Swift’s disappointment,
the article did not cause the shock
he intended, and was largely dis
missed as a joke.
Peter Sur did not have this prob
lem. While I do not know him and
therefore couldn’t state for certain
whether he believes his stance in
“Selective euthanasia can save the
world” (ODE, Feb. 7), the tone of
his article suggests not. Rather, he
seems to be following Swift’s model,
begging awareness for problems
which require more creative an
swers than those currently offered.
The response to this article has
been disappointing. Yes, eugenics
plans should be considered evil. But
what solutions should be consid
ered in a government that will not
provide adequate funding to care for
the homeless, sick, prisoners and
other “undesirables”? What’s more,
how better to take care of the dissi
dents whose freedoms our govern
ment seems bent on suppressing?
Our nation is burdened by prob
lems that our leaders would rather
ignore than address. However, un
less Sur’s plan is carried out, we
cannot expect society’s problems to
simply “go away.” This proposal
should be seen as a call to action,
not to mobilize for selective eu
thanasia, but to invent creative and
constructive solutions to the very
real issues we face. Surely we can
do better than Sur’s.
Katie Drueding
junior
history
Put your butt
where your mouth is
I read the Oregon Daily Emerald
almost every day. And I’ve been
noticing an increase in passionately
worded commentaries and letters to
the editor praising the merits of a
“preemptive” attack on Iraq and de
ploring all of us willy-nilly (even trea
sonous) “peaceniks,” who aren’t
convinced that such a war would be
either necessary or just.
So, I’m wondering, why aren’t all
of you pro-war (and oh so knowl
edgeable) tough-talkers in the mili
tary? I mean, shouldn’t someone
who believes so passionately in a hy
per-militaristic foreign policy be will
ing to put their pro-war butts on the
line for their supposed convictions?
Paul Griffes
senior
geography