* 'iTfvUVl » vhVO
Oregon Daily Emerald
Thursday, September 30, 2004
NEWS STAFF
346-5511
JEN SUDICK
EDITOR IN CHIEF
STEVEN R. NEUMAN
MANAGING EDITOR
AYISUA YAHYA
IARED PABEN
NEWS EDITORS
PARKER HOWELL
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
MORIAH BALINCIT
CAN El A WOOD
ANTHONY LUCERO
KARA HANSEN
MECHANN CUN1FF
NEWS REPORTERS
CLAYTON JONES
SPORTS EDITOR
JON ROETMAN
SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER
STEPHEN MILLER
BRIAN SMITH
SPORTS REPORTERS
RYAN NYBURC
PULSE EDITOR
NATASHA CHIUNGER1AN
SENIOR PULSE REPORTER
RYAN MURPHY
DAHV1 FISCHER
AMY LICHTY
PULSE REPORTERS
DAVID JACERNAUTH
EDITORIAL EDITOR
TRAVIS WILLSE
AILEE SLATER
CHUCK SLOTHOWER
JENNIFER MCBRIDE
COLUMNISTS
ASHLEY CRIFFIN
SUPPLEMENT
FREELANCE EDITOR
CABE BRADLEY
NEWS FREELANCE EDITOR/
DIRECTOR OF RECRUITMENT
DANIELLE HICKEY
PHOTO EDITOR
LAUREN WIMER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTOGRAPHER
ERIK BISHOFF
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER
BRET FURTWANCLER
GRAPHICS EDITOR
KIRA PARK
DESIGN EDITOR
ELLIOTT ASBURY
CHARLIE CALDWELL
DUSTIN REESE
IEANN1E EVERS
SHADRA BEESLEY
COPY CHIEFS
PAULTHOMPSON
KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD
SPORTS COPY EDITORS
AMANDA EVRARD
AMBER UNDROS
NEWS COPY EDITORS
LINDSAY BURT
PULSE COPY EDITOR
ADRIENNE NELSON
ONLINE EDITOR
BUSINESS
346-5511
JUDYRIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
REBECCA CRITCHETT
RECEPTIONIST
NOAH EVENS
JOHN LONC
MALLORY MAHONEY
HOLLY M1STELL
XAVIER XIONG
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
346-3712
MELISSA CUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
TYLER MACK
SALES MANAGER
ALEX AMES
MATT BETZ
HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN
MEGAN HAMLIN
ELISA IESSOP
MAECAN KASER-LEE
MIA LE1DELMEYER
EMILY PH1LBIN
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
KELLEE KAUFIHEIL
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KATY GAGNON
SABRINA GOWETTE
LESLIE STRAIGHT
KERI SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
TARA SLOAN
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
JENCRAMLETT
KRISTEN DICHARRY
CAMERON GAUT
ANDY HOLLAND
DESIGNERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year by the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Co. Inc., at the University of Ore
gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald
operates independently of the
University with offices in Suite
300 of the Erb Memorial Union.
The Emerald is pnvate property
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
■ In my opinion
Hot air and cold issues
Comparing presidential elections to
each other is a tricky business. Four years
is just long enough to push half-willed
campaign promises, near-slanderous
commercials and sound-byte debates out
of even an informed voter's memory.
But this problem of comparative elec
toral judgments is even muddier for vot
ers as young as myself, who generally
lacked political perspective for most of
the elections for which they’ve been
alive. Even after taking account of this
uneven appreciation for politics, though,
I’m willing to call this year’s presidential
campaign, without question, the most
frustrating contest in memory.
Gobbledygook about Senate votes
and dubious analyses of employment
numbers clog the public’s conscious
ness, while the major candidates’ posi
tions on the economy, Iraq and the war
on terror (whatever that means now) are
shapeless, impractical or both. And it's
not even October yet.
Both parties deserve blame for the in
tellectually bankrupt kabuki of Swift
boats and National Guard service that is
presidential electoral politics 2004. But
Democratic strategists and their Republi
can counterparts are culpable for differ
ent reasons.
In a gambit demanding more moxie
than seems tenable in a presidential race,
Republican strategists followed inquiries
into President Bush’s spotty National
Guard service with criticism of Sen. John
Kerry’s own service from the era. Never
mind that Kerry’s superiors thought his
service merited Bronze and Silver stars,
which are awarded respectively for hero
ic or meritorious achievement or service
and gallantry in action against an enemy
of the United States. (Incidentally, Kerry
_i'll 11 IP _
TRAVIS WILLSE
RIVALESS WIT
also received three Purple Hearts.)
Really, it’s unclear how relevant any
of that should be. How much one’s con
duct three decades ago define one’s
present character is debatable, and
drawing conclusions about likely presi
dential policy from what someone did in
1972 is tenuous at best. (In the most
compelling argument for a relevant con
nection between the candidates’ pasts
and presents that I’ve read, Slate Maga
zine’s William Saletan suggested in a
Sept. 16 piece that Bush’s Vietnam-era
service is relevant because of his present
day “abuse” of the Guard. That’s fine,
but military policy should be defined on
the terms of ensuring domestic tranquil
ity and providing for the common de
fense, not on those of the personal serv
ice histories of its executors.)
In any case, for reasons unclear —
unless they’re those of irrelevance as
described above, which are probably
too far above modern electoral politics
to be practical — Kerry’s softball cam
paign has largely avoided firing back
about the comparison, squandering
what looks like a forensic freebie of ele
phantine proportions.
And such is Kerry’s worse electoral
folly to date: An evident inability to capi
talize on key Bush campaign (and poli
cy) shortcomings. The most potent way
to counter Bush’s unduly optimistic and
largely untenable present plan for Iraq is,
of course, offering a more practical, co
gent course. (For those who disagree
with my prognosis of the Bush adminis
tration’s Iraqi fortunes, consider both the
shortcomings of the plan to date and the
administration’s unwillingness to curb
them to practicality.)
Kerry’s problem isn’t that America
likes the status quo too much to listen:
According to a Democracy Corps poll
taken Sept. 19-21, only 43 percent of like
ly voters think that the nation is headed
in the right direction. Fifty-two percent
said it was on the wrong track.
Kerry’s problem is the same one that
I suggested plagued the Democratic
Party’s message in this space last fall
(“Democrats’ demise;” ODE; Nov. 7,
2003): His talk about Iraq and the war
on terror so far seems vague, disjoint
ed or just noncommittal. In fact, Ker
ry’s views on Iraq are not contradicto
ry, as critics would like to suggest, but
thf y are nuanced, and they haven’t yet
,Jueen digestibly explained. And, for bet
ter or worse, casual issue voters pick
proposals on gut reaction and quick
comprehensibility, not more complex
analyses they don’t have time for.
Kerry’s first chance in some time to
parse more clearly his views on Iraq and
the war on terror to a large audience is
tonight’s presidential debate, the first of
three planned.
In a race as close as this — a recent
vote projection gave Bush 51.1 percent
and Kerry 47.1 percent of the popular
vote — every turn of phrase counts. If
Kerry wants to close the gap, he’ll need
to pick words that are clearer than the
jumble he’s offered so far.
traviswillse@ daily emerald. com
■ Guest Commentary
Dungeon-like rating undeserved
Campus dorms not so ‘dungeon
like’ as Princeton deems.
This summer the Princeton Review
released its most recent report on cam
puses throughout the country and rat
ed the University of Oregon number
one in the category “Dorms Like Dun
geons.” The “Dorms Like Dungeons”
rating is neither accurate nor deserved.
The Princeton Review survey instru
ment contains 73 questions, two of
which have to do with residence halls.
(Those two questions have to do with
“dorm comfort” and “residence hall In
ternet connection.”) No survey with
two questions about residence halls is
adequate to determine whether or not
any campus has the best or worst resi
dence halls in the country.
We have not been unable to
ascertain how many surveys they
received from University students or
even if any residence hall students
completed their survey.
In addition, they apparently only
survey students every three years, so
the data this year’s ratings were based
on what was collected in 2001. They
claim that student ratings don’t change
very much from year to year.
Most important, however, is that
these results are inconsistent with in
formation University students report
when we survey them about their resi
dence hall experience. Students tell us
that they particularly appreciate the
quality, variety and long hours of our
food service, how quickly maintenance
requests are fulfilled and the friendli
ness of the custodial staff.
The one thing they would change is
our older facilities. They would like larg
er rooms and rooms that are better at
accommodating their modern needs
and keeping out unwanted noise. These
findings are not surprising and the Uni
versity is addressing them in two ways:
1. We are building a Living Learning
Center, the first step in updating all of
our residence halls. The Living
Learning Center will have rooms that
are 50 percent larger than the rooms in
most of our residence halls. The rooms
will also have better sound-proofing
than our current residence hall rooms.
After completion of the Living Learn
ing Center we will move on to renovate
or replace existing residence halls.
2. We have created several proto
type rooms to get feedback from
residents about modifications we can
make in existing residence halls to
maximize the effective cubic footage
in each room. Feedback on these pro
totype rooms has been positive.
The University clearly has work to
do with regard to updating our resi
dence hall facilities. However, existing
facilities have been well-maintained
and the public areas are cleaned regu
larly and diligently.
Mike Eyster is assistant vice president
for student affairs and director
of University housing.
■ Editorial
No.l worst
dorms: not
a shock
to students
Last week, The Register-Guard ran a re
action piece to an article in our Back to the
Books issue. Mike Eyster, director of Uni
versity Housing, essentially ballyhooed
the less-than-scientific method used by
the Princeton Review to rank the residence
halls at the University as No. 1 in the
“Dorms Like Dungeons” category. Scien
tific or not, — it’s true.
Every year, people find out, once again,
that the residence halls aren’t worth the
ridiculous rates charged. And what was
this “wincing” in the Guard article when
we published the Princeton Review’s re
sults? Is the Housing Department sur
prised? Has anything really changed since
last year?
University Housing claimed that stu
dents generally seem positive on the
more detailed surveys they collect. How
ever, these surveys are deceptively precise
in their questioning. Sure, Princeton
Review’s poll questions are broad — but
that’s what people look at when they
want an overview of a school’s housing
experience.
Does anyone care that the food is de
cent, or the maintenance people are
friendly when you find yourself living in a
frigid, 148-square-foot shoebox with inad
equate storage space, a dearth of power
outlets, one microwave for 80 people and
a roommate who has nothing in common
with you?
Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it’s
raining. Prefabricated concrete slab walls
accented with heavy masonry and tiny
prison-like windows may have been all
the rage during the Eisenhower adminis
tration, they are a bit outdated today.
We know Housing is building a new res
idence hall complex, and it’s going to be
lovely and wonderful because it will be
wired from top to bottom, and the toilets
will always smell like roses.
But will the Living Learning Center
become the next Barnhart — yet another
fancy residence hall for athletes and
the students willing to pay top dollar for
the amenities, like floor space, that other
colleges offer? The new complex should
be reserved for the average student,
who nowadays gets crammed into Bean
Complex.
These are the people who deserve the
extra architectural elements designed to
foster community because these are the
students closest to what residential halls
are supposed to embody — a mixed bag of
people from every conceivable back
ground coming together to build a com
munity from scratch.
OREGON DAILY EMERALD
LETTERS POLICY
letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged,
and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.CQm or submitted
at the Oregon Daily EmeraU office, EMU Suite 300, Electronic
submissions ate preferred Letters are limited to 250words, and
guest commentaries to 550 wxds Authors are limited to one
submission per calendar month. Submissions should
riclude phone number and address for verification. The Emerald
reserves the rtgjit to edit for space, grammar and style Guest
submissions are pub&shed at the discretion of the Emerald.