Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 31, 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, March 31,2004 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor: Jan Tobias Montry Editorial Editor: Peter Hockaday EDITORIAL Delayed ASUO elections lead to rushed race for candidates Judging from the scattered murmurs of campaign goals and students donning witty, multicolored shirts to spread the word, the ASUO elections season has officially kicked off. Let the grievances begin! 'Ibis year's process has already started off on the wrong foot. The ASUO Constitution Court rejected the elections packet not once but twice, because ASUO Elections Coordinator Stephanie Day wanted to schedule the vote during the Law School's Dead Week twice. This delayed the packet's distribution and kept offi cials from filing or even knowing the rules governing campaign procedures, since the packet contains the campaign regulations and the necessary forms for filing for candidacy. The whole af fair ended with ASUO being forced to schedule the primary and general elections during weekends when many students are tra ditionally getting sloshed at the local dives. The whole controversy could have easily been avoided with a little foresight and organization. Elections officials could have seen this coming, given the grievances filed last year by three law students when the Elections Board attempted to do the exact same thing. The election could have started in February, as it was done in 2000, 2001 and 2002, thus avoiding both the conflicts with Dead Week and the influx of students using DuckWeb for class registration purposes. This election schedule would have also been constitutionally sound, as the GreenTape Notebook dictates the elections be held between Feb. 1 and April 30. Then again, the Constitution Court could have been more clear in last year7s ruling when it said the ASUO Constitution did n't actually require that voting dates fall out of Dead Week (this year the court ruled that in fact it does). Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Now the current student body is facing an election like it has never seen before. In recent years, a full month has been allowed between the filing deadline for candidates and the primary election. This gap had a two-fold purpose: To allow candidates more time to campaign and get their message out, and to allow students more time to famil iarize themselves with the candidates and issues (although it should be noted that there is no rule against starting a cam paign, say, in September). Furthermore, the rushed — and late — elections will only give the new administration a little over a month for transition (i.e. appointing a staff and getting ready for a year of bitter student politics). Not that student government elections at this University have been a walk in the park in the past. Prior elections have often amounted to little more than a series of bitter and often petty squabbles, one ticket getting elected by a gross minority of the total student body, and the winners subsequently getting little done during their tenure. Rinse and repeat. Last year, student leaders publicly endorsed students by us ing their official ASUO titles and a University listserv to cam paign, nearly triggering grievances, while the election-dates dis pute and a candidate campaigning within 50 feet of a voting booth resulted in two grievances. in zuuz, nret jacooson, men-puDiisner ot uie Oregon Com mentator, filed a grievance after the Elections Board refused to allow campus media, including the Emerald, to witness a pri mary vote tally. Then-Elections Coordinator Courtney Hight told the Emerald in 2002 that she denied Jacobson's request because he was rude to her and other board members. She added that his affiliation with former presidential candidate Timothy Dreier, who worked at the Commentator and is currently the maga zine's editor in chief, also presented some kind of problem. On March 21,2001, the Constitution Court heard four back to-back grievances, a few against ASUO Executive candidates. To kick it off, candidates Jacobson and Matt Cook appealed a decision by the Elections Board to disqualify them because they campaigned in the residence halls, which halted the general election (they were eventually added back on the ballot by the Constitution Court). Another grievance accused eventual ASUO Exec Nilda Brooklyn and Joy Nair of campaigning using ASUO phones, and another alleged the Elections Board printed an er ror in the elections packet. And in a hilarious example of just how seriously some candi dates take these elections, former Oregon Commentator Editor in Chief Ed Madrid petitioned the Elections Board in 2000 to run for the Executive under the name "All these people are id iots," telling officials that he was legally changing it. Unfortu nately, the Board told him he had to use his "real" name. We can only hope for such comic relief this season. With that, the Emerald Editorial Board urges students to an alyze, question and pester candidates, find the best ones for the job, and vote! , If you have time in the next week, that is. Eric Layton Illustrator Negotiating improvement Mexican immigrants, many illegal, have flooded over America's southern border in recent years. They came in search of jobs, a better life and, well, jobs. The effects of this immigration wave — 217,000 legal immigrants in 2002 alone and about 300,000 illegal immigrants an nually — can be seen everywhere, from bilingual business signs to the faces on the street to Eugene's recently named Cesar Chavez Elementary School. Mexican im migration is changing our daily lives. The March/April cover story of Foreign Policy magazine opines that change is a problem. Samuel P. Huntington, who co founded the magazine, writes, "The per sistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two lan guages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not as similated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves from Los Angeles to Miami and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream." First, one should be wary of a smug sense of cultural superiority when one hears of "Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream." Second, Huntington partially bases his thesis on the assertion that Mexican Ameri cans and Anglo Americans have irreconcil able differences. He approvingly dtes a Mex ican-American businessman who pointed to a "lack of initiative self-reliance and am bition" that supposedly hold Latinos back. This is the same absurd stereotype of the lazy Mexican that we should all be sick of hearing. Huntington, afraid to call it as he sees it, instead lets a Mexican American do it for him, as if that somehow makes it less offensive. Huntington should take a dose look at the hardworking Mexican Americans who run their own businesses, who put out for est fires, who every day mop, clean, pour, wash, pick, plant, scrub, hammer and oth erwise support our comfortable existence in exchange for wages that are in some cas es exploitative (of course, Mexican-Ameri can doctors and lawyers do exist, but for every Mexican-American doctor there is an army of cooks). One might also take issue with the alarmist tone of Huntington's piece. He writes Mexican immigration could result Chuck Slothower Taking issue in "the end of the America we have known for more than three centuries." He adds, "Americans should not let that change happen unless they are convinced that this new nation would be a better one." One would like to hear Huntington ex plain what he means by "let it happen." What can be done to stem the flow of Mex ican immigration into the United States? Surely, throwing more money into the bot tomless hole of border security is not the answer. Physically blocking entry into the United States along the 2,000-mile U.S. Mexican border is unworkable This leaves only one good solution, as Huntington ad mits: Raise Mexico's standard of living to a level that significantly reduces Mexicans', incentive to come to the United States. The North American Free Trade Agree ment was supposed to do just that. The ac cord readied by the United States, Mexico and Canada a decade ago broke down trade barriers among the three nations, but it has not lived up to its billing. The New York Times reported NAFTA has not raised living standards in Mexico as promised. In fact, the gap between the rich and poor in Mexico has widened. While NAFTA lets U.S. consumers save a few cents on Mexican imports, those savings have come at the cost of Ameri can jobs. As usual, the greatest benefici aries of the free-trade pact have been large corporations. Perhaps a better agreement could have raised the standard of living in Mexico, thus reducing illegal immigration, but that was never the focus of the negotia tions. In the final analysis, Mexican immigra tion is something Americans will simply have to leam to accommodate. Hunting ton worries that Mexican immigrants are not sold on the American dream, but that has been said of every immigrant group that has reached our shores. America is resilient. No matter how many Mexicans immigrate to the United States, it will not change what makes this country unique. Perhaps we might have to leam Span ish, perhaps immigrants will strain Ameri ca's social safety net, perhaps we might see a few more soccer matches on TV. Is that really worth panicking about? Contact the columnist at chuckslothower@dailyemerald.com. His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.. . .
