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
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL
Hoopla over
2 draft bills
in Congress
is needless
Throughout history, the military draft has been imple
mented with varying degrees of public scrutiny and outcry.
First established in 1863 to shore up support for the Civil
War (a move that resulted in heavy rioting), the Selective
Service had inducted nearly 3 million men between the
ages of 21 and 30 by the end of World War I. By the end of
1947, more than 10 million men had been drafted into
service, according to the Columbia University Press.
When the Korean War began in 1951, the minimum
drafting age was reduced to 18.5 years old, and exemp
tions and educational deferments started discriminating
against working-class men. But it was not until the Viet
nam War debacle and escalating public awareness about
the inequities of the draft that it became a major social
issue for the first time since the Civil War. Public outrage
over the senseless killing of American lives mushroomed
into public uproar, mostly conducted at the doorsteps of
draft boards and induction centers.
Meanwhile, men fled the country or exploited technical
ities by the thousands to dodge the draft, and in 1973 the
150-year-old mandatory "patriotism" was abolished, leav
ing the nation with volunteer-only armed services.
It seemed, finally, that the worst-case scenario of such a
policy — that tens of thousands of draftees would die
fighting a war many failed to understand — had mush
roomed into a political change for the better.
That changed, however, in 1980 when Congress once
again reinstituted mandatory registration for the draft,
ruling that it would only be used if needed. Now, with
the escalating situation in Iraq, which some critics label
the new Vietnam, rumors have circulated about renewed
efforts in Congress to do just that.
And while those rumors are true, the chances of a draft
actually happening are slim to none.
Two bills are currently alive in Congress — Senate Bill
84 and House Bill 163 — that would institute the Uni
versal National Service Act of 2003. The act states, in part,
that "it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every
other person residing in the United States, between the
ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of na
tional service, unless exempted, either as a member of an
active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a
civilian capacity that promotes national defense." The
bills also amend the Military Selective Service Act to al
low females to be drafted.
The problem with worrying about such legislation is sim
ply that both bills suffer a serious lack of support from Con
gress and the general public. The Senate version, introduced
by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., in 2003, lacks any co-spon
sors and has been lingering in the Committee on Armed
Services for more than a year. The House version, mean
while, has accumulated 13 co-sponsors, but has also been
stalled in the House Armed Services Committee for more
than a year. Currently, the bill is sitting in the Subcommittee
on Total Force and awaiting Executive comment from the
Department of Defense.
To give some perspective on the kind of pressing politi
cal matters that the Subcommittee on Total Force deals
with, and thus how seriously the House takes the bill, the
subcommittee is also considering a resolution that would
express "the sense of the Congress that Harriet Tubman
should have been paid a pension for her service as a nurse
and scout in the United States Army during the Civil War."
But we digress. The point is this: The draft is a bad idea
just like involuntary servitude is a bad idea. The notion
that simply being a citizen in the United States means
you owe something to the government is philosophically
dubious. Being forced to fight in a war you might not
agree with is downright undemocratic.
The Vietnam War brought out the worst in the draft,
and it isn't likely that society will forget that minor detail
very quickly. So don't go packing the bags for Canada yet;
as of now all the hoopla is purely hype.
Not a Duck problem
The cartoonish Oregon Duck mascot is
offensive to ducks everywhere, but the Uni
versity of Illinois' Chief Illiniwek is really of
fensive to American Indians because, well,
humans have feelings.
So, more than 40 Illinois students, in a
nod to the protesting gurus here in Eugene
took to their administration building Thurs
day in protest of their mascot. It was an ac
tual sit-in. Good for them. Bravo.
Recendy, our own rabble-rousers got all
snippy-snappy when the athletic department
scheduled men's basketball games against
Illinois in 2004 and 2005. They referred back
to a widely ignored resolution, drafted by
law students in 2002, that asked Oregon's
athletics department to not schedule games
against teams with offensive mascots.
The debate is more stupid than Jessica
Simpson with a can of tuna. The Illinois
protest is legitimate because those are the
people who have to live with a white guy
wearing face paint and dressed up as a chief.
But this is their issue like America impos
ing democracy on the world, we here in Eu
gene feel it necessary to impose our hippie
inspired views on the country. If we see
American Indian mascots as offensive then
dam it the/re offensive So we'll take a stand,
and not schedule games against teams that
use them! And nobody will notice! Yay!
I'm going to get blasted here for being too
conservative, for writing against change But I
like change just as much as the next protester.
I just think there are more serious
things than mascot issues. Anybody who
knows anything about sports knows that
mascots are silly and stupid. They jump
around and clap a lot. They're more of a
distraction than anything else.
Peter Hockaday
Today is Hockaday
And, most important, they honor people
and places. Mascots aren't chosen to piss
people off, they're chosen to appeal to many
(gotta sell merchandise!)
Look at some of the mascots around
here. The Portland Trail Blazers honor
early explorers. The Seattle Mariners and
San Francisco 49ers honor the West's sea
and gold trades, respectively. The San
Jose Earthquakes of Major League Soccer
honor the Richter scale.
According to an Illinois investigation of
the issue the Chief Illiniwek mascot was first
chosen to honor Illinois tribes, and the first
costume was crafted on a reservation. The
costume has changed only five times, and
each time a new costume is donated by
members of a South Dakota Sioux tribe The
Chiefs dance at halftime was originally in
spired by actual tribal dances.
Many people have argued that the mas
cot has changed over the years as our society
has changed. Now, they argue our progres
sive culture calls for progressive mascots.
That's how you get politically correct — but
boring — mascots like the Toronto Raptors
and the Colorado Avalanche.
I don't think we need more progressive
mascots, we just need a more open-minded
approach to examining mascots. We need to
realize that they aren't meant to offend and
only meant to honor.
And we need to stop trying to force the is
sue. We need to let the Illinois students run
their own protest. They've learned from the
best: us. And the/re ready to shake things
up in Urbana-Champaign.
We shouldn't try to shake for them.
Contact the columnist
at peterhockaday@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
Oregon has let its students down
I served on the "incompetent" OUS
Board while the state went through the
greatest depression since World War II. I
did my best to balance educational quali
ty, access and affordability. As incompe
tent as I may be personally, I managed to
see what others did not. Our state univer
sities have never
had their own
ballot measure.
This is a big
deal, and unlike
Measure 30, a
measure focused on increasing access for
low-income Oregonians could actually
pass this decade in a state made popular
by political lip service for the importance
of education, but little action beyond
complaining about costs. Your editorial
("Thanks for memories, debts, Jarvis,"
ODE, April 7) does that beautifully
The truth is the Legislature raised tuition;
the state board and chancellor did not.
Take legislative process 101. Further, af
fordability may not always be "what stu
dents want more than anything else" as
your editorial claims. Just ask a freshman
in a class of300 being taught by a 22-year
old GIF right out of their undergraduate if
affordability in education is their most im
portant concern, or if quality is. An afford
able education that amounts to being
treated like cattle and not challenged intel
lectually is neither good for the individual
nor the state. Smaller classes, brilliant pro
fessors and outstanding facilities cost mon
ey. Your editorial ignores that all the belt
tightening in the world cannot make up for
a state government that has financially giv
en college students the middle finger.
Without more state money, a policy of in
creasing college affordability would greatly
decrease educational quality. Your editorial
ignores that fact and so do most lawmakers.
Tim Young, a graduate student studying
public policy and management, served on the
OUS board and as student body president of
Portland State University.