NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
JEN SUDICK
EDITOR IN CHIEF
STEVEN R. NEUMAN
MANAGING EDITOR
JARED PABEN
AYISHA YAHYA
NEWS EDITORS
PARKER HOWELL
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
MORIAH BALINCIT
MECHANN CUNIFF
KARA HANSEN
ANTHONY LUCERO
CANF.LA WOOD
NEWS REPORTERS
CLAYTON JONES
SPORTS EDITOR
JON ROETMAN
SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER
STEPHEN MILLER
BRIAN SMITH
SPORTS REPORTERS
RYAN NYBURC
PULSE EDITOR
NATASHA CHIUNGERIAN
SENIOR PULSE REPORTER
DAHV1 FISCHER
AMY LICHTY
RYAN MURPHY
PULSE REPORTERS
DAVID IAGERNAUTH
EDITORIAL EDITOR
JENNIFER MCBRIDE
AILEE SIA'IT.R
CHUCK SLOTHOWER
TRAVIS WILLSE
COLUMNISTS
ASHLEY GRIFTIN
SUPPLEMENT
FREELANCE EDITOR
GABE BRADLEY
NEWS FREELANCE EDITOR/
i RECTOR OF RECRUITMENT
DANIELLE HICKEY
PHOTO EDITOR
IAUREN WIMER
SI NIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
DM BOBOSKY
PHOTOGRAPHER
ERIK B1SHOFF
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER
BRET FURTWANCLER
GRAPHICS EDITOR
KIRA PARK
DESIGN EDITOR
ELLIOTT ASBURY
CHARLIE CALDWELL
DUSTIN REESE
DESIGNERS
SHADRA BEESLEY
JEANNIE EVERS
COPY CHIEFS
KIMBERLY BLACKF1ELD
PAUL THOMPSON
SPORTS COPY EDITORS
AMANDA EVRARD
AMBER LINDROS
NEWS COPY EDITORS
LINDSAY BURT
PULSE COPY EDITOR
ADRIENNE NELSON
ONLINE EDITOR
BUSINESS
(541)3465511
JUDYRIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
REBECCA CRITCHEIT
RECEPTIONIST
NATHAN FOSTER
AIBINCCUO
ANDREW LEAHY
JOHN LONG
MALLORY MAHONEY
HOLLY MISTELL
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
TYLER MACK
SALES MANAGER
ALEX AMES
MAH'BETZ
IIERON CALISCH-DOLEN
MEGAN HAMLIN
ELISA JESSOP
MAEGAN KASER-LEE
MIA LEIDEIMEYER
EMILY PHILBIN
SHANNON ROGERS
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KATY GAGNON
SABRINA COWETTE
LESLIE STRAIGHT
KERI SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
TARA SLOAN
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
JEN CRAM LET
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.
Hiding the civil rights card
Apart from a couple of sound
bites during the presidential de
bates, both candidates have
worked hard to remain silent on
the issue of civil rights. For the
few of us in America who judge
our presidents based on their
civil rights record, I have good
news and bad news.
The bad news: The biparti
san U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, in an act of extreme
partisanship, has decided to
wait until after the presidential
election to discuss the Bush
Administration’s horrific civil
rights record.
The good news: They re
leased online a 180-page staff
draft of their report, entitled
“Redefining Rights in America,”
and it is absolutely devastating.
The best news: Unlike the
commissioners, 1 have no
qualms about discussing their
findings this close to Nov. 2.
Call me crazy, but I think the
people should know their pres
ident’s policies before they
vote for him.
The commission reports that
“President Bush has neither ex
hibited leadership on pressing
civil rights issues, nor taken
actions that matched his words.”
When accounting for infla
tion, the six major governmen
tal civil rights programs have
lost spending power under
Bush’s watch. He refuses to
meet with civil rights leaders
and to attend their events. He
rarely uses his public platform
to talk to the American people
about civil rights issues, and
when he does, it is usually part
of an official duty, like com
menting on a historically signifi
cant date.
Bush has tried to eliminate
programs that are important to
poor minority communities,
like HOPE VI. He requested a
$1 billion decrease in low in
come housing for 2005, accord
ing to the report. Bush has also
attempted to end important
programs for women, like the
Department of Labor’s Equal
Pay Matters Initiative and Title
IX enforcement.
The report calls the
president’s commitment to Na
tive Americans “inadequate”
and says that such a lack of
commitment “ensures that
their education, housing and
law enforcement conditions
DAVID JAGERNAUTH
CRITICAL MASS
remain substandard.”
None of the administration’s
rhetoric has been backed up by
actions. The stated objectives to
increase federal grants to black
colleges and increase minority
homeownership are worthy
goals, but Bush does not have a
plan on how to achieve them.
Bush has demanded no ac
countability to ensure that civil
rights objectives are met or that
laws are enforced. Why? Be
cause he just doesn’t care.
The only thing remotely pos
itive in the report is that the
President’s Cabinet and judi
cial appointments have been
relatively diverse in terms of
race, ethnicity and gender, a
commendable feat. However,
as the report points out, minor
ity status does not necessarily
equate to an expertise with, or
commitment to, civil rights. In
fact, the persons of color that
occupy positions within the
Bush administration are
uniquely hostile to civil rights.
This form of racial cynicism is
rampant among Republicans.
" People of color are paraded in
front of the media to criticize
civil rights programs and cham
pion programs that would hurt
communities of color in order to
deflect accusations of racial prej
udice away from the party.
The ultimate goal is to con
trol the context of the debate,
to take an issue that is racial in
nature and redefine it as an is
sue solely about philosophic or
political differences. If they
succeed, we won’t talk about,
for example, the racial implica
tions of the No Child Left Be
hind Act, because Rod Paige is
Secretary of Education.
It is the same reason they
put Condoleezza Rice in front
of the cameras to parrot the ad
ministration’s view on slave
reparations. A few newspapers,
afraid that the public wouldn’t
get the point, took the absurd
step of describing Rice as “an
African-American” in their
articles, without attributing
race to anybody else, even oth
er blacks. Subtle.
This “colorblinding” tech
nique is popular even among
white liberals who are more
comfortable talking about eco
nomic issues than racial ones.
Bush further dilutes the civil
rights discussion by painting
things that have nothing to do
with civil rights — like his
faith-based initiative — with the
civil rights brush. As the report
points out, the only way Bush’s
faith-based initiative has
anything to do with civil rights
is in a negative context because
it condones religious discrimina
tion in hiring.
Perhaps the most damning
critique from the Commission
on Civil Rights involves Bush’s
apathy toward those who were
illegally disenfranchised during
the 2000 election. “As a result of
the President’s inaction," the re
port states, “little will change
before the 2004 elections.”
Why isn’t John Kerry scream
ing this from the rooftops?
davidjagemauth
@ daily emerald, com
INBOX
Costly Measure 37 threatens
Oregonians' quality of life
Lurking on a controversial November
ballot is another attempt to increase
state expenses and hurt the quality of
life for Oregon residents. If approved,
Measure 37 would require the state of
Oregon to “pay owners, or forego en
forcement when certain land restric
tions reduce property value.”
Provisions in the United States and
Oregon constitutions already safeguard
citizens from unfair governmental “tak
ing” of private land without just compen
sation. Measure 37 goes far beyond these
constitutional rights. It forces taxpayers
to compensate landowners if any land
use decision has restricted the use of
property purchased by the owner, their
parents and even their grandparents.
Measure 37 will be extremely costly to
Oregon taxpayers. According to the sec
retary of state, Measure 37 will cost tax
payers up to $344 million per year in new
paperwork and red tape alone. According
to the state treasurer, the final costs for
payment of claims to landowners “can
not be determined. ” Measure 37 provides
no funding mechanism and the only way
to pay for these costs would be through
cuts in local services or increased taxes.
Measure 37 is poorly written. The
measure provides no guidance on its im
plementation, and it will lead to lawsuits,
uncertainty and increased costs. The
retroactive clauses are impossible to cal
culate and are unfair to the public. The
courts threw out a similar idea in 2000.
Voters need to do the same in November.
Join the broad-based, bipartisan oppo
sition to Measure 37. Farm bureaus from
across the state, including Lane County,
oppose the measure because it will in
crease taxes and remove protections for
prized farmland. Conservation groups op
pose Measure 37 because it will increase
sprawl and decrease our quality of life.
Small businesses and business owners
oppose Measure 37 because it will in
crease bureaucracy and lawsuits and
make it even more difficult to obtain basic
things like building permits. More bureau
cracy and red tape made it harder to do
business in Oregon. Neighborhood associ
ations oppose Measure 37 because it
would undermine protections against the
effects of harmful development and would
provide no compensation for reduced
property values resulting from develop
ment. Would you want a used car lot or a
fast-food chain next door to your home?
So, who is in support of Measure 37?
Large corporate landowners who stand to
gain millions. In researching campaign fi
nance reports, 1000 Friends of Oregon
found that eight corporate landowners
gave 72 percent, or $540,000, to support
the measure. Corporate special interests
should not benefit at taxpayer expense.
This fall, vote “No on 37” to safeguard
land use planning in Oregon and preserve
the quality of life that Oregonians enjoy.
Jonathan Evans
Graduate student
Measure 35 will restore
balance to health care system
In her guest commentary (“Keep
health negligence reward decisions in ju
ries’ hands,” ODE, Oct. 13), Kathy
Brooks appeals to emotion over reason
and may therefore succeed in perpetuat
ing an inaccurate understanding of the
scope and purpose of ballot Measure 35.
Measure 35 will not restrict the rights of
injured patients to sue their doctors, nor
will it prevent them from receiving ade
quate economic and medical care compen
sation, nor will it even stop juries untrained
in medical science from assessing blame.
Instead, this measure would merely rein
state a previous $500,000 cap on non-eco
nomic damages. This cap was only re
pealed by the Oregon State Supreme Court
in 1999, so it was in fact intact at the time
Ms. Brooks’ baby was injured.
As the daughter of a physician and an
aspiring future physician myself, I urge
voters not to view Measure 35 as a battle
between doctors and lawyers or between
insurance companies and patients. The
prevention of frivolous lawsuits and curb
ing of costly malpractice premiums are
public health issues that influence pa
tients' access to lifesaving services.
Health-care providers who support Mea
sure 35 are not trying to escape conse
quences for their mistakes; rather, they
seek to restore some balance in our
health care system whereby patients
maintain access to high-quality health
care and doctors don't have to practice
defensive medicine in constant fear of
frivolous lawsuits.
1 am sorry that Ms. Brooks did not re
ceive appropriate medical care during her
delivery. It is a tragedy when a doctor ir
reparably injures a patient, and that pa
tient should certainly receive adequate
medical and economic compensation.
Unfortunately, some injuries are so se
vere that no amount of money can repair
them. Suing for tens of millions of dollars
in these cases only bankrupts doctors
and their families while driving up the
cost of malpractice insurance and the
cost of health care for other patients.
While frivolous or enormously costly
lawsuits are not the only reasons for the
escalating cost of malpractice insurance,
they foster an untenably stressful envi
ronment for the majority of diligent,
hardworking doctors. The previous cap
on non-economic damages helped to sta
bilize and lower the cost of doctors' in
surance premiums. Since repeal of the
cap, at least 125 providers have ceased
delivering babies. Currently there are no
neurosurgeons practicing along the coast
or in Eastern Oregon.
If we want to ensure continued high
quality health care, we must re-establish
a balance between support for victims of
medical malpractice and competent, con
scientious doctors.
Emily Jeffrey
Eugene
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY
Letters to (he editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald .com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office EMU Suite 300 Electronic
submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month Submissions should
include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald
Measure 35 a 'slick campaign'
of insurance companies
Insurance companies want us to think
that doctors are leaving Oregon to avoid
paying high medical malpractice premi
ums. However, I just read about a study
by Public Citizen showing that the num
ber of doctors in Oregon is actually in
creasing. Measure 35 will not help doc
tors; instead, it will limit our ..right by
changing the constitution. Voters should
not be swayed by the insurance indus
try’s slick campaign.
Please join me in voting “NO” on 35!
Helene Montgomery
Eugene
ONLINE POLL
THIS WEEK'S RESULTS
Do you support Oregon Measure 36, which would
amend the state constitution to redefine marriage as be
tween a man and a woman?
1. Yes, marriage should be between a man and a
woman-14.9 percent
2. Yes, but gays and lesbians should be offered civil
unions that would give them some benefits - 9.9 percent
3. No, gay couples should be allowed to marry and to
secure similar rights as other couples - 58.4 percent
4. No, I don't think we should make amendments to the
state constitution - 9.9 percent
5. Marriage should be abolished for everyone
Total out of 101 votes.
Look for next week's poll question in Monday's issue.
I