Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Wednesday, June 26,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
ROITORIAL.
W.U. Task Force ideas
don't do much to solve
recurring riot problem
In the last editorial, the board unintentionally referred to the campus as "Nike
U." We regret the error. We meant to call the school "Riot U."
Going back to a time that only faculty members will likely remember — 1997
and 1998 — riots occurred over the Halloween weekends. Rioter took to West
University area streets twice in 2002. Just this month, another small-scale, riot
like incident transpired.
So, spanning back to last June, that means the area is averaging a riot once every
four months. We'd safely bet such a statistic is the highest in the nation.
After the September 2002 riot, in which more than 1,000 student-aged people
participated, the City of Eugene called out and called upon the University to con
trol its students.
"This activity happened because of the University of Oregon," Interim City
Manager Jim Carlson said days after the riot. "We need to work with them to make
sure they help us in preventing this in the future."
Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey said he intended to press the University for a part
nership and, perhaps more importantly, the finances to help repair the tattered
neighborhood.
"At this point, we haven't received any funds," Torrey said this past September.
"We haven't received any commitment of funds. But I can assure you, (the Uni
versity is) going to be working very strenuously to see how we can spread the cost
of these activities."
A partnership did in fact form, something called the West University Task Force.
Ironically, the group presented its recommendations to the Eugene City Council
just days after the latest riot. These suggestions were aimed not just at alleviating ri
oting, but at improving the community.
While students should certainly welcome any forum that speaks to cleaning up
the West University Neighborhood, the Task Force was off-base.
Yes, more lighting would enhance the neighborhood, maybe even make it a
safer place on any given night. More lighting won't result in fewer riots.
Yes, changing the student conduct code to include repercussions for serious
misdeeds off-campus could result in a greater student awareness. But ultimately it
would lead to hypocrisy.
Would the severity of the crime be determined by the University? Would mis
demeanor crimes be considered one way, felonies another? Would these students
be kicked out of school? Would the University accept convicted felons into the
school, but expel those whom commit crimes as students?
Clearly, changing conduct codes could open a floodgate of problems to decent
students who make small mistakes, over which the University should have no au
thority. And, we point out, it wouldn't result in fewer riots.
Educating freshmen preparing to move into the West University Neighborhood
is another good idea. But when students drink, how many actually remember
what they've been taught? Giving students a broad overview on legal culpability
will likely only lead to more trouble for drunken college kids. Riots won't occur
less frequently, either.
The only recommendation that makes sense to us are increased Eugene Po
lice Department patrols, which the University is willing to do — sort of. The
University and city will split the cost of one officer to patrol the neighborhood
by foot, Carlson said. The other recommendation is EPD "knock-and-talks,"
where officers visit the houses with registered kegs to explain responsibility on
the day of parties.
As students, we hate to say the answer is a greater police presence, but it is. Kids
will be kids, the saying goes. We believe this is OK, too. Simply, a policy needs to
be adopted that sets new guidelines on partying.
We don't want the "party patrol" to bust every gathering every weekend; it's too
expensive and excessive But waiting until a problem occurs and then taking such
action is the current solution, and that doesn't work.
We suggest parties with over 35 people be subject to a "zero-tolerance" rule that
punishes all who break the law. Parties with fewer individuals should fall under of
ficers' best judgment. EPD should include another officer, along with the afore
mentioned, to aide in the effort. These two officers could affordably provide ef
fective riot prevention while being fair to the student body.
The other option, of course, is for EPD to seriously injure and arrest a vast ma
jority of rioters. In our minds this is equitable and reasonable; other cities take
this course of action and it seems to discourage rioting altogether.
We'd prefer our first suggestion, obviously. But something needs to be
done. Now.
Three months and counting.
EDITORIAL POLICY
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses
can be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest
commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited to 250 words and guest
commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per
calendar month. Submission must include phone number and address
for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar
and style.
Affirmative re-action
The Supreme Court handed
down a motley pair of rulings
on Monday that pundits
dubbed the most important af
firmative action decisions in 25
years. Naturally, the split deci
sion prompted both sides of
this issue to declare a probably
premature victory.
The Court churned out a nar
row 5-4 ruling upholding the
university ot Michigan law
school's admission policy, citing a qualitative process
that considers race as one factor among many.
But the ruling fell far short of a total victory for affir
mative action proponents: The Court jettisoned that
university's controversial — and unconstitutional —
undergraduate admission system that handed 20
points on a 150-point scale to "underrepresented mi
nority" applicants. (By contrast, the system awarded
only five points for national-scale "personal achieve
ment" and an "outstanding essay" netted strong writ
ers only three points). Chief Justice William Rehnquist
observed in the majority opinion that the "automatic
distribution of 20 points has the effect of making 'the
factor of race... decisive' for virtually every minimally
qualified underrepresented minority applicant."
But this ruling shouldn't have surprised anyone.
Long ago the Court ruled in the landmark case Re
gents of the University of California vs. Bakke that nu
merical racial quotas were constitutional no-nos. The
Court was bound to find that a system that slaps a
number on minority status was tantamount to using
those quotas and would reject it accordingly.
Jennifer Gratz, a white plaintiff in the eponymous
undergraduate case who had been denied admission
to Michigan, hailed the 6-3 decision: "I'm happy the
court recognized the inherent unfairness of the under
graduate admissions system. I believe this decision
will make it harder for schools to use race-based pref
erences." But this optimism is overzealous at best, as
this ruling more likely just foreshadows a less legally
tractable resurgence of the same dilemma that the
Court just tried to hash out.
Part of the Supreme Court's motivation for shutting
down California's quota system and Michigan's point
scheme are the same: They both use numbers. People
— Supreme Court justices included — don't like be
ing reduced to figures. Assigning people different
numbers for reasons like race and for purposes like de
ciding who gets into college is clearly justifiable cause
Travis Willse
Knowledge Crystals
for nixing that system on the
grounds of the 14th Amend
ment's equal protection clause.
So, the Supreme Court says
numerical systems and affirma
tive action don't mix. But in the
law school mling they left fuzzi
er, "holistic" systems like Michi
gan's law school admissions
alive and well to accomplish the
same thing as their quantitative
cousins: using race as a ractor in
deciding who gets to go to school where they want
and who doesn't. The Bakke and Michigan cases
therefore set a new and dangerous precedent, push
ing admissions further from the daylight of the trans
parent and the quantitative into the dark alleys of the
subjective, hidden and unverifiable. Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg opined in the undergraduate case's
dissent that, "If honesty is the best policy, surely
Michigan's accurately described, fully disclosed col
lege affirmative action program is preferable to
achieving similar numbers through winks, nods and
disguises." And while the Court's undergraduate rul
ing sets a good standard, Ginsburg's partially right:
Good policy here encourages bad behavior.
These "disguises" will probably darken the admis
sion process as long as affirmative action is around.
And while Congress unfortunately won't outright ban
affirmative action in college admissions anytime
soon, the deepened qualitative mush that the recent
Michigan decisions will create needn't haunt Ameri
can colleges forever. Congress should pass legislation
that requires schools to create, for public review, a re
port detailing numbers of applying and accepted stu
dents, broken down by race and whatever else that
school's affirmative action policy uses to discriminate
among applicants. The report would also list the aver
age GPAs and SAT scores of the incoming students,
again for each of the same categories as the raw admit
tance numbers. Such a mandate would bring much
needed transparency to programs that threaten to be
come less objective than ever.
While critics might deride such legislation as divi
sive, the reports would just reflect facts: At worst,
they'd be no more divisive than the affirmative action
policies themselves.
Contact the copy chief at traviswiiise@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily represent those
of the Emerald.
PGA Tour standards sub-par
Once again double standards are hurting the true
idea of equality. I'm sure you might have heard the
PGA tour recently featured a new face at the Colonial
Tournament a few weekends ago, Annika Sorenstam.
Since then many have been
wondering why a wo man ^ mmmm
was allowed to complete in a K153* I
PGA tour event. Many tour COMMENTARY
players have spoken out on _
this issue, which many see as
nothing more than a publicity stunt. I find myself ask
ing why a woman is playing on the men's tour when
the women have their own tour. Why isn't there a man
playing on the women's tour then? Ms. Sorenstam
didn't even have to go to qualifying school, where all
— yes all — players are supposed to go to in order to
compete in any — yes any — tour event. Why is it that
Annika doesn't have to qualify?
How is this fair that men such as Vijay Singh have to
endure years of prejudice and determination just to
make it to the qualifying school; all the while Annika
can completely skip it and take the spot of someone
who has paid his dues? And, at the same time, sending
the LPGA the message that it just isn't competitive
enough for her and that she has to play elsewhere to
be challenged. Sadly enough, it seems that once again
fairness is being tossed aside in favor of a political cor
rectness, so that a woman can try to make a statement
about nothing. What is this going to prove? Why is it
that if men and women are so equal, a woman can
play in the men's tour, but it would be bloody murder
and unfair if Tiger Woods was to compete in the next
LPGA tour event.
Now I'm sure that every feminist is probably up in
arms ready to lecture me on equality and why women
should be able to play in leagues specifically for men. I
think that equality and fairness should work both
ways and I'm becoming sick and tired of all these dou
ble standards that give women the right to infringe on
men's sports, while if a man did the same thing that
just wouldn't be fair. In high school girls are allowed
to play football while guys cannot play volleyball or
lacrosse if they so desire How is that fair? Obviously
equality is an idea that can be used at the viewer's dis
cretion. So I would like to give a simple warning of
'FORE* to all those who would believe that true gen
der 'equality* actually exists in today's society, when a
woman can play on the men's tour and men cannot
do the same on the women's tour.
Anthony Warren is a sophomore majoring
in political science.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Column, headline offend reader
The Mason West article ("It's time to say 'fuck,"
ODE, June 9) was revolting, totally stupid and with
no redeeming values, which is the best I can say
for Mr. West.
For your paper to allow such filth, and to then
headline the "F” word, as well as its continued use in
the column, was ridiculous. So much for institutions
of higher learning.
Mr. West only has the "guts" to use that word in
your newspaper where he can hide
If he ever used that word in front of my office staff
or my wife and family members, even though I'm
pushing 75, I would advise Mr. West to close his
filthy mouth.
Wayne L Johnson
Eugene