Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 27, 2005)
Oregon Daily Emerald Thursday, January 27, 2005 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 |EN SUDICK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR IARED PABEN AYISHA YAHYA NEWS EDITORS MECHANN CUNIFF PARKER HOWELL SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS MORIAH BALINGIT AMANDA BOLSINGER ADAM CHERRY KARA HANSEN ANTHONY LUCERO SHELDON TRAVER NEWS REPORTERS CLAYTON JONES SPORTS EDITOR JON ROETMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MILLER BRIAN SMITH SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR NATASHA CHIUNCERIAN SENIOR PULSE REPORTER AMY UCHTY RYAN MURPHEY PULSE REPORTERS CAT BALDWIN PULSE CARTOONIST DAVID JACERNAUTH EDITORIAI. EDITOR GABE BRADLEY JENNIFER MCBRIDE AILEE SLATER TRAVIS W1LLSE COLUMNISTS ASHLEY GRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR LAUREN WIMER SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER TIM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHER NICOLE BARKER ERIK BISHOFF PART TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS BRET FURTWANCLER GRAPHIC ARTIST KIRA PARK DESIGN EDITOR DUSTIN REESE SENIOR DESIGNER WENDY KIEFFER AMANDA LEE BRIANNE SHOLIAN DESIGNERS SHADRA BLESLEY JEANNIE EVERS COPY CHIEFS KIMBERLY BLACKF1ELD PAULTHOMPSON SPORTS COPY EDITORS AMANDA EVRARD AMBER UNDROS NEWS COPY EDITORS LINDSAY BURT PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR SLADE LEESON WEBMASTER BUSINESS (541)346-5511 JUDY R1EDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER REBECCA CRITCHETI RECEPTIONIST NATHAN FOSTER AIBINC CUO ANDREW LEAHY JOHN LONG HOLLY MISTELL HOLLY STEIN DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541)346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER MATT BETZ HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN MEGAN HAMLIN KATE HIRONAKA MAEGAN KASER-LEE MIA LEIDELMEYER EMILY PH1LBIN SHANNON ROGERS SALES REPRESENTATIVES KELLEE KAUFTHF.1L AD ASSISTANT CLASSIFIED (541) 3464343 TRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KATY GAGNON SABRINA GOWETTE LESUE 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 CAUT JONAH SCHROGIN 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 ol Ore gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. ■ In my opinion Innate sender differences legit Lawrence H. Summers is a smart man. An economist by training, he earned a bachelor’s degree at the Massa chusetts Institute of Technology, a doc toral degree from Harvard, and taught at both — becoming one of Harvard’s youngest tenured professors in recent memory. He edited the Quarterly Jour nal of Economics, won the National Sci ence Foundation’s prestigious Water man Award and served as the World Bank’s chief economist, as the secretary of the Treasury and most recently as the president of Harvard. If Summers’ analytic prowess is formidable enough that world leaders have tapped him to manage some of the most complex fiscal machinery man hath wrought, then why has he spent much of recent weeks apologiz ing for remarks in a speech at the conference, “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce”? Well, during his speech, which was organized by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers reviewed several factors that might explain the large gap between the numbers of men and women among the scientific elite. The most influential, he suggested, was that fewer mothers than fathers were willing to sacrifice family hours to work the 60- to 80-hour weeks that scientific research can demand. Summers also fin gered discrimination within academia as a likely culprit (incidentally, the confer ence’s morning proceedings suggested that, however extensive discrimination is, its grip is weaker than it used to be). He then referred to research suggest ing that, while boys and girls post simi lar medians on standardized math tests, variance in boys’ scores were much higher than those of their counterparts TRAVIS WILLSE RIVALLESS WIT — in other words, boys are more likely to score unusually high or low than girls. The result, Summers postulates, is that because most of the top scorers are men, more men end up in top science jobs. Some critics were disgusted by his suggestion: “1 felt I was going to be sick,” MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins told The Washington Post. “I was extremely upset.” Unfortunately, because Summers’ comments came from notes but were ex temporaneous, and because no public transcript was drafted, we can’t argue too much about the nuances of what was said. But there’s general agreement that the differences between men and women that lead to differences in test score variances are “innate” — and that’s what prompted outcry about Sum mers’ half-formed sensibilities, short sightedness, “fatalism” about Harvard’s ability to attract top female scientists and whatever other non sequiturs critics con cluded from his remarks. There are good reasons why sugges tions that one gender is more genetical ly predisposed to academic success than the other prompt reactions as vis ceral as Hopkins’. Purportedly “innate” differences between genders (and among races, for that matter) have been used as excuses to deny rights and privileges to otherwise deserving individuals; academia, for its supposed intellectual modernity, hasn’t proved to be a consistent exception. But that doesn’t mean “innate” differ ences don’t exist. Olympic sports are usually split by sex, and no one would argue that the differences that prompt such segregation are exclusively a prod uct of social conditioning. And socializa tion — which is itself biologically influ enced — is likely the most significant factor in the gender demographics of various disciplines. Regardless of how much the statistical differences between genders that Summers mentioned are bi ological and how much are social, given that an estimated one-half of the human genome is involved in brain develop ment, we should expect some innate cognitive differences between the gen ders. In terms of achievement, however, these differences are aggregate: They are characterizations of diverse populations as a whole; they are not (nor could they be) predictors of, or limitations to, indi vidual achievement. Construing them as justifications for limiting rights would be nonsensical and outrageous. In any case, the well-placed loathing for undue discrimination has fathered obdurate toads of political correctness that inhibit discussion of innate gender differences for reasons that include the above. Work on the human genome be gan recently, and will almost certainly reveal new genetic differences between genders (and therefore, ones that are “in nate” in a very real way). An academic and political culture willing to admit these differences would be one better prepared to navigate the ethical chal lenges they might incite. traviswillse@ dailyemerald. com ■ Guest commentary Emerald inciting 'tabloid fodder' In light of this year's events involving the various branches of the ASUO, and the subsequent Emerald coverage and editorials, we feel that a response is more than necessary. It is our obligation to inform students of the facts, a duty that the Emerald has proven it is unwill ing to fulfill. The most recent ASUO event the Emerald has reduced to tabloid fodder was the Emerald’s PFC hearing. The stu dent-elected Programs Finance Commit tee is independent from the ASUO Exec utive and is responsible for allocating student funds to more than 140 pro grams. The Emerald is partially funded through this process. During their hearing, Mason Quiroz, one member of the PFC, made a motion to defund the Emerald based on what he said is an excess of papers being printed. The other members of the PFC, and the Executive, recoiled. Adam Petkun, ASUO President, immediately voiced his opposition and willingness to veto such a motion if it were to pass. Not surpris ingly, the motion fell far short of the unanimous vote it would have needed to succeed. Instead, the Emerald was al located $111,992, in accordance with the Executive recommendation. The Executive recommendation, pre pared by Finance Coordinator Mike Martell and Vice President Mena Ravas sipour, was based on a readership sur vey the Emerald provided, which it is contractually obliged to conduct. The Emerald has since said they’re not satis fied with this survey and do not believe its results to be accurate. The Executive welcomes the Emerald to conduct an other, more satisfactory, reader survey per their contract; they have had two years to do so, yet have done nothing. The content of the Emerald was never addressed in the hearing. Coverage of the ASUO Finance retreat or any other matter was in no way introduced as an issue to be taken into considera tion with regards to the budgetary process. To allege as much is a seri ous accusation that impugns the integrity of everyone involved in the process. What’s more disturbing is the Emerald's willingness to use this as a basis for further accusations of cen sorship. What seems more conceiv able is that the Emerald believes that through such threatening editorials it can scare the PFC into giving it addi tional student dollars. Fortunately, we take the incidental fee more seri ously than that. 2004-05 ASUO Executive INBOX Combat racism: understand its complex history The other day as I was running by Autzen, I noticed anti-Semitic graffiti all along the footbridge. My first reac tion was to shake my head in disap pointment, lamenting at the fact that even today bigotry and hatred lives on. The University espouses and ag gressively promotes ideals of diversity and tolerance, yet in spite of all that, old prejudices still exist. Perhaps it was not on the mind of the person who spread this anti-Jewish message that this month marks the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army, when the world was so appalled at the full extent of Nazi racial policies that we swore such hatred would “never again” happen. I have frequently been instructed by other white people that racism is evil and that racists are basically evil people. To that cultural norm, I say: How can we possibly hope to under stand racism if we simply dismiss it as a distasteful relic of our past? It is obvious to me that racism and anti-Semitism are not simple issues of good and evil; they have complex roots stemming from centuries of ex periences between different peoples and are deeply embedded in societies. During this month, as we honor the lives of those who perished at Auschwitz, it is my hope that we at tempt to better undrstand racism and its historical roots, instead of just labeling racists as “evil.” Only then can we ever hope to combat hatred and bigotry. Zachary White Junior ■ Editorial Incompetent student government nothing new If we were to sum up the behavior of this year’s student leaders in a single word, well — we think you know what word we would use. But if we were to use a word that is not four letters long, it would be “unprofession al” because for all their seemingly official trappings, the entire student government is plagued with an organization-wide case of terminal incompetence. Not that this should be much of a sur prise. The history of student government on this campus is peppered with examples of supreme incompetence, the heights of which this year’s group has not come close to reaching. But in terms of consistency of incompetence, of a shocking lack of profes sionalism time and time again, it is doubt ful that any other year can compare. Examples of unprofessional behavior among our student leaders are too numer ous to mention, but they include arriving late to meetings, being absent during voting and using disrespectful language when dis cussing groups’ budgets. Case in point: The Jan. 10 meeting of the Programs Finance Committee started with an apology by PFC Chair Persis Pohowalla for her “unprofessional behavior last week.” The PFC members then agreed to “respect what others have to say,” as if they were a group of kindergartners and not stu dent leaders in control of millions of dollars. The most egregious example of the PFC’s unprofessionalism this year is its in ability to treat groups consistently. The standards with which the PFC measures the need for funds seem to arbitrarily shift with each group. Many groups can attest to the PFC members’ disorganization and confusion over simple matters and the bizarre rationales that are used to justify certain decisions. How can Pohowalla justify funding the Lane TVansit District buss pass fee, which is only used by a fraction of the students, by saying, “Like everything we fund, not every student is going to benefit, but they’ll have the opportunity to benefit,” when the logic used in the Executive recommendation to reduce funding for the Emerald was that less than 100 percent of the students cur rently read the paper every week? How can PFC member Jael Anker-Lagos condone the OSPIRG budget, which is sent off-campus for projects not focused on the campus community by saying, “I want to think of OSPIRG’s money being sent off campus as saving University of Oregon stu dents money,” when the Emerald was criti cized for distributing some papers in off campus areas students utilize frequently? If anything good has come from the PFC’s incompetence this year, it is the cold, hard proof that our current student leaders do not possess the skills or professionalism re quired to distribute millions of dollars in student incidental fees. Hopefully, they will be held responsible for their behavior when elections roll around rather than ride back into office on a tide of voter apathy.
