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
Friday, February 20,2004
-Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
Donate time,
not just money
In response to Aimee Rudin ("Panhandling Predicament,"
ODE, Feb. 11), I applaud you on recognizing the growing
problem of homelessness in Eugene. It's an issue that many
people in this town try to ignore. We all have been panhan
dled on the streets of Eugene and some of us do make the
decision to give away change that we have.
GUEST
COMMENTARY
I understand the argument that
giving away money only facilitates
drug and alcohol abuse. However,
it is a fallacy to assume that every
person who is asking for change is
planning on spending it on drugs.
Though because some do, it proba
bly is a better option to give away food when you can. Yet
you shouldn't stop doing so because of one bad experience. I
volunteer at a homeless center here in Eugene and have also
tried to give away food to people that spare change me. I have
never had any homeless person turn down a gift of food. If it
did happen, I would just assume that that person didn't need
the food and I would keep it for someone who did. Likewise,
by saying that you "can't do anything about any of these
problems," you fall into the belief system of many people in
our society.
It sounds like you genuinely want to help the cause of
homelessness in our city. If you're concerned about giving
away your change or your food why don't you volunteer your
time? There are numerous organizations in Eugene, such as
Looking Glass and White Bird, that help aid the homeless
population.
If you truly "want to do something" but have “run out of
ideas," why not consider giving away your time? It won't cost
you anything and you will help the plight of the homeless
significantly.
James Eweil is a senior majoring in psychology.
Illinois" mascot
name intolerable
In 2002 a resolution was drafted, and later signed by over
240 students, 25 law professors and the outgoing (Dean
Strickland) and incoming (Dean Kirkpatrick) law school
deans, calling for the University of Oregon to refrain from
contracting sporting events featuring teams that used Na
tive American imagery without tribal affiliation and over
sight. The two NCAA teams with tribal affiliation and over
sight are the Florida Seminoles and the Utah Utes. The
University of Oregon has intermittently scheduled games
with the Utah Utes, and this was permissible under the con
straints proposed by the resolution.
GUEST
COMMENTARY
The resolution was presented
(summer of 2002) in a private
meeting with myself, Debra Mer
skin (from the journalism depart
ment) and President Frohnmayer.
In this private meeting, President
rronnmayer (a member or the NCAA panel reviewing the
use of Native American imagery in the NCAA) promised
that the panel would be meeting that summer to resolve the
issue at the NCAA policy level, and that the University of
Oregon would honor the resolution's ban on scheduling
teams not affiliated with tribes.
Not only has the NCAA panel pushed debate on the is
sue into 2005, it has just been announced that the Universi
ty of Oregon basketball team will play the University of Illi
nois "Fighting Illini" the next two seasons, including
participation in the University's annual Pape Jam held in
Portland. As many of us know, the University of Illinois'
mascot (Chief Illiniwek) is one of the most controversial
and contentious representations of Native Americans in
American sports. President Frohnmayer's tolerance of this
scheduling is a complete affront to the spirit of the resolu
tion, the University of Oregon's minority communities, and
the University's stated commitment to honor diversity.
Please join me in encouraging people from around the
country to express their anger at President Frohnmayer and
the University of Oregon athletic department's disrespect
and dismissal of the resolution, and the will of minority
and sympathetic members of the University's community
at large.
Frank Silva studies law.
CROSSING THE
RACIAL LINE
One of Roger Williams University's
4,087 students might have an easier time
paying for school this year: In what some
pundits hail as an important stimulus for
discussion about affirmative action and
what others reject as racist "white pride,"
the Rhode Island school's College Repub
licans chapter gave student senator Adam
Noska a $250 scholarship available only to
white students.
In most respects, the inaugural grant —
which drew 17 applicants — wasn't so
different from other scholarships. Appli
cants were required to submit an essay
and post a strong academic record. The
money line: The essay's topic is "why you
are proud of your white heritage." (The
application bluntly asks, too, for a recent
picture to "confirm whiteness," and tact
lessly states "evidence of bleaching will
disqualify applicants.")
uut or context, creating and ottering
this scholarship, simply put, is wrong. Re
stricting funding for a social institution as
essential as higher education to a specific
group based on race or gender or sexual
orientation or anything unconnected
with academic performance is the worst
sort of socially and govemmentally sanc
tioned discrimination. It's as bad as the
University of Michigan's extinct practice
of giving "underrepresented minority"
applicants a sizable chunk of bonus
points, unfairly boosting their chances of
admission (a custom Michigan dropped
after the Supreme Court junked it last
year). While certain biases toward some
minority students are constitutionally
tenable, they have been ruled so in the
context of increasing "diversity" on cam
puses. Discriminatory scholarships,
though, can't fairly make the same claim:
To deny opportunities to people for
which they are otherwise qualified based
on characteristics unrelated to those op
portunities violates all sorts of political
doctrines. Proponents of such scholar
ships weakly rely on often dubious
arguments that imply "net equality of op
portunity" (however it's constructed) is
more fundamental to fairness than equal
ity in how a system treats people.
The scholarship has drawn fire from
across the political spectrum.
Paul King — president of the University
of Illinois' Anti-War, Anti-Racism group —
told the News-Gazette (Champaign, 111.),
"(The Roger Williams University College
Republicans) represent a racist mindset."
Travis Willse
Rivalless wit
The Rhode Island's state Republican Par
ty distanced itself from the club, too. Citing
"racist overtones," state party Chairwoman
Patricia Morgan blasted the group: "We
have zero tolerance for racism in the Re
publican Party. I'm really appalled by the
way they brought this up."
The club itself, though, is no ship of
fools: The group is explicitly parodying mi
nority scholarships, President Jason Mat
tera explained. More importantly, he
knows the club is violating its own politi
cal tenets, and knowing the mles is the first
step in breaking them effectively.
"We think that if you want to treat
someone according to character and how
well they achieve academically, then skin
color shouldn't really be an option," Mat
tera said.
Mattera, who is incidentally of Puerto Ri
can descent, is a recipient of a $5,000
scholarship open only to minorities. But
Noska implicitly dissolved the superficial
problem of Mattera's potential hypocrisy:
When receiving his check, the Weymouth,
Mass., native explained, "I may not be in fa
vor of a scholarship, but if I qualify for it,
you can bet your bottom dollar I'll apply."
What's most telling about the present
debacle, though, is not that the affirma
tive action debate is very much alive, and
evidently maturing, too, nor is it that
campus conservative groups are political
ly active — that such a simple form of
protest took so long to materialize can
probably fairly be chalked up to the ubiq
uitous spook of political correctness. It's
not even that some who criticize the Col
lege Republicans chapter are willing to re
sort to arguments absurd to the point of
rhetorical irrelevance (protesters held
signs of the Republican Party's elephant
symbol emblazoned with the Confeder
ate flag and even swastikas).
What's most important is how our socie
ty responds to issues like this and what that
means. That offering a scholarship to a par
ticular ethnic group — a common practice
at this level of abstraction — has drawn so
much public and media attention, not to
mention serious criticism, is a reminder of
one of the many kinds of racial discrimina
tion in this country. (Admittedly, this very
column makes that claim something of a
self-fulfilling prophecy.)
But regardless of political philosophy,
everyone should agree with at least one of
Mattera's assertions. When asked by the
press at the scholarship presentation
whether his group had succeeded in con
veying its message, he observed, "Look at
all the media here. Affirmative action is
now being debated."
And unearthing important debate from
the quicksand of political correctness is
good for everyone's intellectual integrity.
Contact the editorial editor
at traviswillse@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.