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
Monday, February 16, 2004
*. K h , %\ .. i, 1 7. e* •> ♦,
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Ian Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL
Postponing
new arena
is prudent
'Hie basketball has, only tentatively, burst.
It happened Wednesday, when University President
Dave Frohnmayer announced that plans to build a new
arena have been placed indefinitely on hold.
Money, more than anything else, can be attributed to why
the arena project — or at least this arena project — is dead.
Back in April 2003, costs for a new arena were estimated be
tween $90 million and $130 million. By December, two
months after Howe Field was chosen as the project's site, es
timated costs had risen to more than $160 million. And in
January, after taking a hard look at what needed to be done to
build a top-tier arena — a must according to the donors who
were reportedly going to chip in $ 130 million — costs had
spiraled to more than $ 180 million.
The Athletics Department clearly didn't want to incur large
amounts of debt to fund the remainder of the project or Frohn
mayer wouldn't let it happen, so the arena has been delayed.
The decision should be applauded because it's the fiscally
responsible thing to do: The University will likely raise tu
ition next academic year after the failure of Measure 30; The
University may have to cut classes after the failure of Measure
30; and Oregon has been regarded as one of the worst states
in the country in terms of higher-education affordability.
While these financial woes should be irrelevant when consid
ering construction of a new arena because the Athletics Depart
ment is self-supporting and separate from academics, Frohn
mayer has wisely realized that the two cannot be separated.
In the minds of many, no matter how distant the Athletics De
partment is from the University as an academic institution, a cer
tain distaste brews when one considers the struggling educa
tional system compared to the thriving athletics establishment
The Athletics Department spent $250,000 to publi
cize a Heisman Trophy campaign for Joey Harrington in
2001. The following year Autzen Stadium received a
$100 million overhaul. This past year the newly re
vamped locker room at Autzen received praise and criti
cism for its many amenities.
Perhaps Frohnmayer recognized that going forth and
building the arena would push the University into an even
more unfavorable national spotlight.
University faculty members are nationally recognized
as being some of the founding fathers against what is
known as the athletics "arms race." Trying to outdo other
sports programs by building the biggest and most extrava
gant facilities is the name of the game, and that's what so
many academics across the country are warning against.
Building the best comes at a cost, they say. Whether it's
the reputation of the University, its integrity or the senti
ment on campus, building a new arena will have an effect.
So now, perhaps in some way to prevent such ramifica
tions, the project is on hold. But, really, so what?
The University will still build a new arena to replace
McArthur Court, it just won't do it on the schedule it set forth.
The arena will still be a multi-million-dollar building,
almost certainly far more millions than the current figure.
And donors will still contribute to the project, most like
ly in a more substantial way.
The University has opened itself up to saying that $180
million is too much because it can't currently be funded.
So, if in a few years, donors are willing to pay for a $225
million arena, it just may be funded.
The University hasn't imposed any sort of self-restraint
on what is necessary. Instead it has taken the philosophy
that, "If we build it, you must fund."
And just watch. When has delaying a project ever result
ed in lower costs?
The University may have put plans for a new arena indefi
nitely on hold. But judging from what has been seen thus far,
there is no such moratorium against the extravagant and the
excessive
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brad Schmidt Travis Willse
Editor in Chief Editorial Editor
Jan Tobias Montry Jennifer Sudick
Managing Editor Freelance Editor
Ayisha Yahya
News Editor
We've come a long way, baby
rrom time to time, 1 am asnamea to Dean
American. My shame has many sources —
sometimes it's our pride, sometimes it's our
astounding levels of greed and consumption,
and other times, it is our seemingly bound
less ability to justify the absurd, the invidious
and the hateful. Nowhere is our capacity for
rationalizing the irrational more frustrating
than when you find it in the words of our
own U.S. Supreme Court justices.
I could, if I wished, bring forth examples
numerous enough to fill up all the gigs on
my hard drive. However, I think I can
make my point a bit more succinctly with
the following gems:
Scott v. Sandford, 1857
"Free negroes and mulattoes are not
such citizens as were contemplated by the
federal or state constitution." "Courts have
nothing to do with the justice, wisdom,
policy, or expediency of a law."
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
"Laws permitting, and even requiring,
(racial) separation, in places where they are
liable to be brought into contact, do not
necessarily imply the inferiority of either
race to the other, and have been generally,
if not universally, recognized as within the
competency of the state legislatures..."
"We consider the underlying fallacy of
the ... argument to consist in the assump
tion that the enforced separation of the
two races stamps the colored race with a
badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not
by reason of anything found in the act, but
solely because the colored race chooses to
put that construction upon it."
Buck v. Bell, 1927
"It is better for all the world, if instead
of waiting to execute degenerate offspring
Jessica Cole-Hodgkinson
Huh? What? Really.
for crime, or to let them starve for their im
becility, society can prevent those who are
manifestly unfit from continuing their
kind. The principle that sustains compul
sory vaccination is broad enough to cover
cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three genera
tions of imbeciles are enough."
Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943
"Whatever views we may entertain regard
ing the loyalty to this country of the citizens
of Japanese ancestry, we cannot reject as un
founded the judgment of the military author
ities and of Congress that there were disloyal
members of that population, whose number
and strength could not be precisely and
quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the
war-making branches of the Government did
not have ground for believing that in a criti
cal hour such persons could not readily be
isolated and separately dealt with, and con
stituted a menace to the national defense and
safety, which demanded that prompt and ad
equate measures be taken to guard against it"
"We cannot close our eyes to the fact,
demonstrated by experience, that in time of
war residents having ethnic affiliations with
an invading enemy may be a greater source
of danger than those of a different ancestry."
Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986
"... to claim that a right to engage in (con
sensual homosexual sex in the pnvacy or
one's home) is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's
history and tradition' or 'implicit in the con
cept of ordered liberty' is, at best facetious."
"... if respondent's submission is limit
ed to the voluntary sexual conduct be
tween consenting adults, it would be diffi
cult, except by fiat, to limit the claimed
right to homosexual conduct while leav
ing exposed to prosecution adultery, in
cest, and other sexual crimes even though
they are committed in the home."
Slavery, segregation, sterilization, concen
tration, homosexuality — these are just a
few areas where the Court's majority opin
ions have left us a legacy to be ashamed of.
Or perhaps not.
When we look back upon these statements
— uttered so earnestly at the time — it's easy
to see how fundamentally flawed the beliefs
behind them are They represent the worst of
our culture: bigotry, ignorance and hypocrisy.
The easiest option is to cringe and then
condemn the authors who wrote such
nonsense and made it the law of the land.
There is, however, a better solution. Look
at how far we've come.
We still have unresolved racial tension;
the new war on terror has created some seri
ous questions about our treatment of those
suspected of terrorist activities, and homo
sexuals are far from having all the rights and
protections of their heterosexual neighbors.
But it could, and has, been worse.
For today — and maybe tomorrow — I
think I'll cheer myself with the notion of
how far we've come and quit fretting over
how far we've left to go.
Contact the columnist at
jessicacolehodgkinson@dailyemerald.com.
Her opinions do not necessarily represent
those of the Emerald.
ONLINE POLL
Each week, the Emerald publishes the
results of the previous poll and the
coming week’s poll question.
Visit http://www.dailyemerald.com to vote.
Last week’s question: How will you
celebrate Valentine’s Day this year?
Results: 48 votes.
• Spending time with my significant
other: 43.8 percent or 21 votes.
• Spendingtime alone... again: 25.0
percent or 12 votes.
• I don’t celebrate Valentine’s Day: 16.7
percent or eight votes.
• Spending time with friends: 14.6
percent or seven votes.
This week: Do you feel the University
should have postponed building a new
sports arena?
Choices: Yes—It’s the fiscally responsible
thing to do; Yes—The University is doing
fine with Mac Court; No—We’re wasting
donor allocations; No-Building a new
court is in the best interest of
the campus...