Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Wednesday, January 14,2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
El 01X0 RIAL.
Professors
should put
ethics before
book profits
The beginning of a new term is always rife with a
twofold sense of anticipation and loss — anticipation
for new classes and experiences and loss as students
shell out hundreds for overpriced and often uninterest
ing textbooks.
The only thing worse, it seems, is shelling out hundreds
for sleep-inducing walls of text written by the same profes
sors who teach the class. This often gives the student not
only a sense, however justified, that the professor can't re
late to budgetary difficulties of many students, but also that
the professor is out to make a quick buck on the backs of
poor college kids.
nowever, tnat s not to say mat all professors at me Uni
versity are incapable of writing decent, well-researched text
books or that all professors are out to rip off the student
body We're fully aware that the University employs a large
number of impeccable educators who, at one time or an
other, have put together textbooks that don't require a
DayQuil to read.
But the idea that professors would create a product that
they could potentially profit from and force their own stu
dents to buy it seems wholly unethical. After all, if a pro
fessor is going to lecture on everything he or she wrote in
the book anyway, then the necessity of buying, much less
reading, the text is drastically reduced. Furthermore, class
readings should give a breadth of views and angles to the
subject in question, something that is distinctly lacking
when you read a chapter one night and hear the same ma
terial the next day.
Some teachers who require their own books, such as
journalism Professor Janet Wasko, remedy this problem by
assigning other books to provide different perspectives,
which is a partial solution to the ethical dilemma.
"If someone is only using a book that they've written,
that could be perhaps problematic," Wasko told the
Emerald. "I don't know what other professors do, but I
use a book that I've written. I always use a lot of other
readings because I think that's an important point that
there should be a lot of perspectives presented. I never
just use my own book."
Professors who don't keep royalties from their books
also seem a bit more fair, although the problem of diver
sity in reading still exists. It's reasonable to assume that
these professors, with their expertise in the field, require
their own textbooks simply to contribute to the under
standing of the subject. But perhaps professors could ac
complish this greater understanding just as easily by mak
ing class notes available online or putting together a
course packet, which is quite a bit lighter on the wallet
than a textbook.
We urge professors who do assign their own books to
forfeit their royalties earned from University students, per
haps giving them instead to a charity or educational organ
ization, or make the purchase optional. At the very least,
these professors should always explain to the class the rea
soning behind assigning the book.
As journalism Professor Kyu Youm told the Emerald: "I
think it’s professionally unethical, and that kind of thing
should not be condoned, unless his textbook is the best in
the whole world," he said. "Some professors are using their
textbooks because they are ego-inflated."
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.
r THESE \
DA/Y\N POLITICIANS
AIN'T GITTIN' ME TO
VOTE FOR RAISIN' .
V TAKES'. y
r HONEY, ^
YOUR WELFARE
CHECK IS
k HERE! >
OREGON
IrtEAErH
Pl-AN
Eric Layton Illustrator
All wired up
Walking from the Lillis Business Complex
to the EMU last week, I counted 12 people on
cell phones. There they were; just walking
down the street, chatting it up, and there I was
with my hands stuffed in my coat pockets,
counting the people who were talking on cell
phones. I wonder if I'm missing something.
My roommates think I'm an oddity be
cause I don't want a cute little phone. My
boss asked me if I would consider buying
one. My dad thinks, "It would probably be
a good idea for you to have one in case
something happens." I asked him, "Dad,
what's going to happen?"
Everyone who knows me tells me I'm hard
to get a hold of, almost impossible to track
down, MIA. They tell me they worry about
where I am and if I'm safe. I wonder how
they think a phone is going to keep me from
harm. I guess if worse came to worse I could
throw it at someone Chuck it at their head,
then run like the dickens. I can see it now.
As a society, it seems we are becoming
more and more dependent on technology.
We are obsessed with being in touch, in
stantly. We carry laptops, cell phones,
pagers and PDAs because we don't want to
miss anything.
With this influx of technology we are see
ing a loss of personal privacy. My best friend
answers her phone while she's on the toilet.
She's had whole conversations with her
pants around her ankles. Nothing is going
to stop her from staying connected.
But is all this connection good for us?
If the way the U.S. government is currently
working is any indicator, by the time I'm
ready to have children they won't need to
worry about telling people where they are.
Instead of carrying phones, they will be im
planted with a homing chip at birth, and
anyone who is looking for diem could locate
their personal little blip on a Global Posi
tioning System screen.
I feel like I need time to myself; time
when people can't get in touch with me
and don't know where I am. I don't feel
bad when someone calls my house and I'm
not there. I think there are very few times in
life when a message is so urgent that it can't
be returned later in the day with only mi
nor consequences for lateness.
When I was a teenager, growing up in my
parents' house; the rule was, “Call by midnight
and let us know you're safe" That was it
At 16,1 drove to Colorado with a friend
for two weeks; we didn't know the name
of the lodge we were going to be staying at
the phone number or exactly when we'd
be back. My mom stood on the porch the
morning we left, waving and telling us
simply to be safe.
When I was 17, Mom followed in my
footsteps and headed out the door to trav
el across the country in a Volkswagen van
for six months. I didn't ask for her itiner
ary or a phone number where she could
be reached. I just stood on the porch the
morning she left and told her to be safe
and to call if she got lonely.
1 believe we need time in our lives to be
alone with our thoughts and our environ
ment, and I fear our movement toward a
completely technological society will ulti
mately destroy any chance we have of
achieving solitude.
Contact the columnist
at aimeerudin@dailyemerald.com.
Her opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
Focus on the crime, not the motive
l ne editorial society must address issue
of hate-based violent crime" (ODE; Dec. 4,
2003) presents an obvious thesis: Violent
crime is wrong and should be stopped. As
stated, the fact
that we need days
of remembrance
clearly demon
strates an embed
ded problem with our cultural paradigm.
However, what I find problematic may
not be what the editorial staff intended. Our
focus should be on violent crimes, not just
hate-based violent crimes. Violence should
be abhorred universally, because it is not
about sexual orientation or race or national
origin. Whether violence is motivated by
hate or by another means is not most rele
vant. What is the most relevant is the fact
that violent crimes occur. Is it less wrong that
GUEST
COMMENTARY
somebody was violently killed because of a
bank robbery than because of a hate issue? I
would venture to say no. Cultural and polit
ical differences cannot and should not be
limited, whether that means loving every
body or hating everybody. What can and
should be limited is criminal activity as a
mode of political expression.
We must separate the political or cultural
agenda from the crime Are all Palestinians
who advocate a sovereign state also advocates
of suicide bombings? Of course not Whether
we agree with a particular political or cultural
agenda does not advocate nor imply advocacy
of violence as a means to our political or cul
tural ends. Hating disliking or disagreeing
with someone is not a crime violent crime as
an expression of that belief is the crime
The reason to establish this discourse is to
combat the fallacious implication that those
who oppose same-sex dvil unions promote
violence as a means to their goals. The edi
torial staff has used violent crimes as a red
herring to promote a narrow political agen
da. It is not requisite that people agree with a
group politically or culturally in order to not
want to kill them.
I do not believe that same-sex dvil unions
should be legalized. However, this belief
does not make me empathetic to those who
use violence as a mode of expression.
Praise should be given to the editorial
staff for raising the issue that violent crimes
are wrong and should be stopped. Howev
er, the staff and anyone else who couples dif
fering political and cultural agendas with
crime should be rebuked.
David Carr is a junior majoring
in political science., , , , , ,