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, June 2, 2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
ElOITORIAL.
Journalism
school shows
bad judgment
with workshop
If students coming out of the School of Journalism and
Communication played pass-the-buck as well as the dean,
none would need to worry about finding a job. They too
could have a career in higher education, where keeping big
name alumni happy is the name of the game, and neglecting
administrative duties is commonplace.
Alumnus Dan Wieden, president of nationally known ad
vertising agency Wieden + Kennedy, is teaching a workshop
offered through the journalism school. Wieden assigned
students to creatively overcome various "fears."
"Taken out of context, it could appear as if the students
are being asked to engage in potentially illegal or unethical
behaviors," journalism Dean Tim Gleason wrote to the
Emerald in a May 28 guest commentary.
One student was asked to go streaking, which is a misde
meanor. It was suggested that another student steal a pres
ent from a wedding, which, depending on the value of the
present, could be a misdemeanor or a felony. One person
was asked to lie to family members, professing an untrue
sexual orientation. Another was asked to lie to a stranger, car
rying on a conversation as though the two were friends.
Taken out of context, it would indeed seem that students
are being asked to break the law or, possibly, their own
moral code. But the course is intended to present students
with difficult challenges, Gleason argues, ones that require
them to creatively complete the tasks.
The problem, though, is that not all students will find in
novative ways to accomplish the assignment, as was shown
by senior Joe Leineweber's naked prance through a local golf
course. Leineweber never had any intention to go streaking.
He was assigned to go streaking by Wieden. Gleason urged
the student to find a creative way to complete the task.
Leineweber thanked the dean for the advice and told him
he would consider it.
And then Leineweber did exactly what he was assigned.
He broke the law.
The journalism school can spend the rest of eternity argu
ing that students weren't assigned to do anything wrong, that
they were instead assigned to find ingenious ways of getting
around the tasks. But look at what happened: A student
broke the law because of a class assignment. There's no way
to get around that!
The journalism school — which is offering credit for the
course and is ultimately responsible for what is being as
signed — needed to intervene. Gleason needed to change
students' assignments, even if they were intent on complet
ing the tasks. Students should not be assigned duties that in
volve breaking the law or lying no matter the context. Clear
ly, some students are dumb enough to do it and the school
should have known better.
But the larger issue is how a student could even be as
signed to break the law in the first place Vice President for
Academic Affairs Lorraine Davis said there is no provision
in University policy that states teachers shall not assign stu
dents to break the law — it just seems obvious.
"It would make sense that illegal activities would not be
promoted," she said. "If we got a direct report or grievance,
we would look into it"
Well, the Emerald ran a front-page photo Friday of
Leineweber at the golf course, unclad. In case our adminis
trators missed it take this opportunity to let them know how
you feel. Gleason can be reached at 346-3739 or at tglea
son@oregon.uoregon.edu. Davis can be reached at 346
3081 or at lgd@uoregon.edu. University President Dave
Frohnmayer can be reached at 346-3036 or at pres@uore
gon.edu.
Before Leineweber broke the law, he had a friend write on
his back, "I am in no way affiliated with the UO School of
Journalism & Communication." The truth is, we all are af
filiated with the University, and what's going on is wrong.
It's time for someone to intervene; to fix what's happened,
and to prevent it from happening to students in the future.
It's a sad day when the University needs to create a provi
sion in its Faculty Handbook to explicitly state that instruc
tors are prohibited from assigning students to break the law.
Much to the discredit of our administrators, that day has
come.
Ignoring the
warming »
American moviegoers spent an estimat
ed $86 million over the weekend to watch
Dennis Quaid battle the effects of global
warming in "The Day After Tomorrow."
The film has faced strong criticism for
over-dramatizing the consequences of
global warming, but most viewers under
stand that it's a work of fiction.
Despite the fact-stretching, anything
that brings global warming to the fore
front of public conversation is a welcome
development. Global warming may be
the most under-addressed issue in con
temporary politics.
Global warming, as even President Bush
admits, is real. A 2001 National Science
Foundation study said "overwhelming
odds" point to a rise in global tempera
tures of four to seven degrees over the next
century. Such an increase would dwarf the
less than one-degree rise in global temper
atures during the 20th century.
An increase that severe could cause
flooding in coastal areas. This represents a
potential disaster because 53 percent of
the U.S. population resides in coastal ar
eas, according to NASA.
A dramatic increase in global tempera
ture could also cause significant problems
for national security, wains a frightening
report commissioned by the Defense De
partment. In the event of a sudden shift in
climate — which has happened in the past
— border skirmishes, invasions and wars
could break out over dwindling water and
energy supplies, the report says.
While the report imagines a worst-case
scenario, it has garnered attention because
of the source — one doesn't usually equate
the Pentagon with "the sky is falling" en
vironmental scenarios — and the Bush ad
ministration's head-in-the-sand approach
to global warming. While the Bush
Chuck Slothower
Taking issue
administration may believe ignoring glob
al warming means good politics, the atti
tude also makes for horrible policy.
The tactic is clearly intentional, as re
vealed by a memorandum from the
prominent Republican strategist Frank
Luntz, which has received well-deserved
and widespread publicity. In the memo
randum, Luntz urged Republicans to con
tinue questioning the scientific basis for
global warming because, "Should the pub
lic come to believe that the scientific issues
are settled, their views about global warm
ing will change accordingly."
The Bush administration's policy calls
for endless study and inadequate action.
President Bush, in a June 2001 speech, de
tailed how his Cabinet-level working
group is "recommending a number of ini
tial steps." He directed the secretary of
commerce to "set priorities for additional
investments in climate change research"
and promised to "enhance partnerships in
applied research."
Of course, Bush doesn't call global
warming by its name. It's "climate change,"
another suggestion from Luntz. "Global
warming," Luntz feels, gives impression
able voters a negative connotation of ris
ing temperatures.
While Bush has called for reduced
emissions, increased scientific funding and
tax breaks for consumers who buy hybrid
cars, his proposals fall far short of what the
situation demands. Rather than recom
mending, setting priorities and enhancing
partnerships in applied research, the presi
dent needs to immediately launch a major
effort to combat global warming. A JFK
style send-a-man-to-the-moon-scale effort
would demonstrate that the president
takes global warming seriously.
Don't hold your breath. Bush has treat
ed global warming as a non-issue since he
broke a campaign promise only two
months after his inauguration to regulate
carbon dioxide emissions at power plants.
A Senate bill introduced by two notable
moderates would take a significant step in
the right direction. Senators John McCain,
R-Ariz„ and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn„ in
troduced the Climate Stewardship Act. The
legislation would impose reasonable caps
on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gas emissions, requiring manufacturing,
energy and transportation firms to cut
emissions to their 2000 level by 2010.
On Oct. 30, the Senate defeated the bill
55-43, but the surprisingly narrow margin
raised hopes that politicians may soon
gather the political will to deal with global
warming earnestly.
Americans produce more of the world's
greenhouse gases than people of any other
nation. A sweeping campaign could have
the potential to significantly reduce the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmos
phere. We need to take immediate, signifi
cant steps to stem the rising temperatures.
Contact the columnist
at chuckslothower@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.