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.. . .