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.