Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 4, 2004)
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, February 4, 2004 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor: Jan Tobias Montry Editorial Editor: Travis Willse EDITORIAL. PFC shouldn't OK funding of USSA dues The University's Programs Finance Committee doles out some $5 million annually to various facilities (for example, the Student Recreation Center); subsidies (Lane Transit Dis trict and child care); and, largely, student groups. Some allo cations fall into another category; off-campus associations. Student fees are collected and disseminated under the assumption of materially benefiting those who pay them. Accordingly, because it is often more difficult to identify benefits imbued on students by a remote organization than it is for on-campus groups, these allocations deserve (and usually receive) additional scrutiny. Indeed, PFC Chairman Adrian Gilmore observed: "When you go off-campus and you go to a federal level, we as a board really need to make sure that the incidental fee is going to benefit students at the University of Oregon." During a January PFC meeting, committee members took some issue with the ASUO Executive's request to fund the United States Student Association, a national political group that lobbies on behalf of students. The USSA origi nally requested $20,000 in student fees but agreed to let funding increase "gradually." Trie final executive recom mendation was $7,435, which could cover dues and stu dent travel to conferences. According to USSA's Web site, "The organization tracks and lobbies federal legislation and policy, and organizes students from across the country to participate in the po litical process, through testifying in official Congressional hearings, letter-writing campaigns, and face-to-face lobby visits between students and their elected officials." Commendably, the PFC was originally wary of the pro posal, which called for a several hundred percent increase over the previous year's allocation. "What makes this not a partisan group? Why should we fund this?" PFC Sen. Colin Andries asked. ASUO President Maddy Melton defended the proposal, say ing the organization doesn't campaign for particular candi dates. Moreover USSA's lobbying inarguably benefits at least some students; Melton said USSA's efforts have helped protect the Pell Grant and reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Funding was tabled until PFC's Jan. 29 meeting, when PFC passed a $9,640 budget for the organization, a whop ping 776.5 percent increase. That students are evidently compelled to fund an explicit ly partisan group that lobbies specific legislation should irk fee-paying students, regardless of their political slant and whether they materially benefit from the USSA subsidy. Some students might argue that diverting funds to a hy pothetical (and implicitly political) national lobby pro moting, for instance, abstinence-only education and the banning of contraceptives in public universities' student health centers would materially benefit students, but many students — those on the Emerald's Editorial Board includ ed — would disagree. Some of those would resent, too, their incidental fees being used for such a purpose. Simply put, mandatory student fees shouldn't be divert ed to any partisan, lobbying end, regardless of how much students benefit from them. 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. EDITORIAL BOARD Brad Schmidt Jen Sudick Editor in Chief Freelance Editor Jan Tobias Montry Ayisha Yahya Managing Editor News Editor Travis Willse Editorial Editor Population panic In three of my five classes, the lectures and readings have recendy turned to the issue of our ever-increasing human pop ulation and its impact on the environ ment in which we live. I've listened to arguments from all sides of the equation, from advocates of sus tainability who say that the number of humans is not as relevant as how we all live, to people who say that it doesn't mat ter how we live — if the number of peo ple on earth exceeds the earth's carrying capacity, then we're doomed. Science has proven that our population is growing exponentially, and the mathe matical diagrams derived by science show that this growth will continue until it peaks. Then the population will crash in a manner reminiscent of Wile E. Coyote hitting the ground after being tricked off the cliff by that silly Road Runner. Now, I believe that human choice is the second most wonderful thing in the world, behind love, but I don't believe that it is possible that all humans would choose together to live in a sustainable manner. We, as individuals, are just too self-centered, too focused on our own well-being rather than the health of our neighbors, to make a choice that would benefit everyone instead of just ourselves. It's hard to admit we're killing ourselves, so let's try something else. Let's imagine that there's this beautiful pristine pond, and in the middle of it is this perfect little island with emerald green grass, flowering plants, nitrogen rich soil and a population of flightless birds that, much like Canadian geese, mate for life, but like penguins have only one or two eggs. The birds have no preda tors on the island, and they outcompete all the other organisms living there for re sources. These birds are weight conscious, so they only eat what they need to survive. Their chicks, which have a very low hatch ling mortality rate, are kind of a pain in the butt, so the birds don't usually have more than one or two. Life is so good on this island that the birds usually live a long time, and often four generations are alive on the island at once. Because of this, with each new birth the island gets a little more crowded. Soon, one family of birds is living right next to another, and before long they are trying to figure out how to stack their nests vertically to make room for the next gen eration. And even though each bird is eat ing only as much as it needs to survive, there is less grass to go around simply be cause there are more beaks to feed and the nests are taking up areas where the plants used to grow. Aimee Rudin Five feet of fury The birds, who are now living on top of each other and stealing food from the beaks of the neighbor chicks, were taught, as hatchlings, not to defecate in their own nests, and since where they used to go has been converted into nesting for the less fortunate birds, they are forced to start us ing the water bank as a bathroom. Before they know it their water is con taminated with excrement so that when Eric Layton Illustrator they try to drink it they get giardiasis, which causes them to poop even more, which in turn makes the water situation worse. Next, the rainy season comes. The rains used to be an asset, but now the plants are gone so the soil along the bank has no anchor, and all the high ground away from the water's edge has been taken over by the healthiest birds leaving no place left for anyone else to go. The rains cause a landslide that takes with it 78 percent of the nesting grounds, and all the chicks that were still in those nests — they all die. Because most of the island just washed away into the dirty pond, when the rain fi nally lets up there is even less growing area for food, and the birds who were squatting up on the high ground now have no homes, no chicks and no food. Most of them just give up and die. The few remaining birds are forced to spend their days scavenging the barren island for single blades of grass while trying not to step in the droppings of their deceased neighbors. It's not pretty, but neither is the di rection we're heading as a population. Contact the columnist at aimeerudin@dailyemerald.com. Her opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. DPS should adopt hanging permits I am a member of the staff here at the University of Oregon and my husband is a law student. I recently got a ticket for not having my University parking permit permanently attached to the bumper of my car. When I broached the Department of Public Safety about the possibility of getting a rearview mirror hanging park ing permit, or sticking the permit on my back window, the parking and trans portation manager gave me the brush off, and implied that he saw no reason to change the current system. How much harder is it to look at the back windshield than the back bumper? Here are some of my reasons for not wanting bumper sticker parking permits: (1) They are very, very difficult to get off, so after a few years you either have a thick collection from putting the permits on top of one another or a patchwork quilt of per mits next to each other. Plus, older permits start to fade and crack and look ugly, but getting them off is such a pain that most people don't bother. (2) If your car is in the shop, you have to go to Public Safety and get a special permit. If the repairs will take longer than a week, you have to get a note from the repair shop (and presumably your mommy). (3) If your permit is on a car used by more than one person, and you borrow your friend's car, sans permit, you have to buy a day pass when you already paid once for the right to park on campus. (4) When selling a car, having old stick ers on the bumper decreases the car's value, even more so if the bumper is scratched from trying to remove the stickers. If the permits were rearview mirror hanging tags then all of these problems could be avoided. Plus, there would be the added benefits of: (1) The permits being usable in more than one car. (2) The tags could be reusable for more than one year. Instead of attaching a big sticker to the bumper, DPS could have tiny colored stickers with the years on them to attach to the hanging tags. It seems like tiny stickers would be much cheaper than the big stickers currently used, which obviously have to be special ly printed for the University. Reasons that DPS might be opposed include: (1) Less revenue because they lose the rev enue from day passes, and the revenue from students having to buy second car permits. (2) Parking officers would have to patrol at the front of cars rather than the bade. (3) In theory, hanging tags could get stolen more (but only if people don't lock their cars). I refuse to believe I'm the only staff member or student who hates those bumper sticker permits and the hassle they represent. Imagine if you had a brand new BMW 5 Series or a Lincoln Navigator. Wouldn't it be awful to stick a tacky Uni versity parking permit on it? Can't DPS even consider an alternative? I've been at a couple other Universities with window stickers (which, although not transferable, are easy to remove) or hanging tags which are all-around super. Either of these types of parking permit tags would be much more user-friendly, espedally the rearview mirror hanging kind. Allison Martinez is an executive support specialist in the Office of International Programs.
