Oregon Daily Emerald
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
JEN SUDICK
EDITOR IN CHIEF
STEVEN R. NEUMAN
MANAGING EDITOR
JARED I’ABEN
AYISHA YAUVA
NEWS EDITORS
MEGHANN CUNIFF
PARKER HOWELL
SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS
MORIAH BALINGIT
AMANDA BOLSINGER
ADAM CHERRY
KARA HANSEN
EVA SYLWESTER
SHELDON TRAVER
NEWS REPORTERS
CLAYTON JONES
SPORTS EDITOR
JON ROETMAN
SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER
STEPHEN MILLER
BRIAN SMriTI
SPORTS REPORTERS
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
NATASHA CHILINGER1AN
SENIOR PULSE REPORTER
AMY EIGHTY
PULSE REPORTER
CAT BALDWIN
PULSE CARTOONIST
DAVID JAGERNAUTH
COMMENTARY EDITOR
GABE BRADLEY
JENNIFER MCBRIDE
A1LEE SLATER
TRAVIS WILLSE
COLUMNISTS
ASHLEY GRIFFIN
SUPPLEMENT
FREELANCE EDITOR
DANIELLE HICKEY
PHOTO EDITOR
LAUREN WIMER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
FIM BOBOSKY
PHOTOGRAPHER
NICOLE BARKER
ERIK BISHOFF
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS
BRET FURIWANGLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
KIRA PARK
DESIGN EDITOR
DUSTIN REESE
SENIOR DESIGNER
WENDY KIEFFER
AMANDA LEE
BRIANNE SHOLIAN
DESIGNERS
SIIADRA BEESLEY
JEANN1E EVERS
COPY CHIEFS
KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD
PAULTHOMPSON
SPORTS COPY EDITORS
AMBER lJNDROS
NEWS COPY EDITOR
IJNDSAY BURT
PULSE COPY EDITOR
ADRIENNE NELSON
ONLINE EDITOR
SLADE LEESON
WEBMASTER
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
IUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
REBECCA CRITCHETT
RECEPTIONIST
AIBING GUO
ANDREW LEAHY
JOHN LONG
HOLLY MISTELL
HOLLY STEIN
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MEUSSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
TYLER MACK
SALES MANAGER
MATT BETZ
HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN
MEGAN HAMLIN
KATE HIRONAKA
MAECAN KASER-LEE
MIA LEIDELMEYER
EMILY PHILB1N
SHANNON ROGERS
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541) 3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KATY GAGNON
SABRINA GOWETTE
IESUE STRAIGHT
KF.RI SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541)3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
TARA SLOAN
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
JENCRAMLET
KRISTEN DICHARRY
CAMERON GAUT
IONAH 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 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 private property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
■ In my opinion
Grassroots education
On Wednesday, in his State of the
Union address, President Bush said
his 2006 budget will eliminate more
than 150 government programs be
cause of either inefficiency or dupli
cation of services.
"The principle here is clear,” he said.
“Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely
or not at all.”
That’s a good line. What boggles
me is how he said it with a straight
face right before transitioning into
No Child Left Behind — talk about a
waste of money.
George Bush was a powerhouse for
education as governor of Texas. By re
quiring the use of phonics and tying
school funding to performance, Texas
raised its literacy rate, especially among
minorities. Though it wasn’t a perfect
plan, it was a great step forward for ed
ucation in the Lone Star State.
In 2000, when Bush wanted to
take his education plan national, I
was optimistic, though soon disap
pointed. Since no one trusts statis
tics anyway, I’ll spare you the num
bers and just suggest that the results
for No Child Left Behind have been
less than spectacular.
What works in Texas doesn’t work
in Detroit. And what works in Con
necticut doesn’t work in Oregon.
Now, the problem is certainly more
complicated than that, but that’s my
point: The problems with education
are complex matters that vary from
city to city, state to state and region
to region. There’s no cookie-cutter
fix for the stupefaction of America.
There’s no magic federal formula for
tackling these issues. Although I
don’t have the answers, I can assure
_
GABE BRADLEY
THE WRITING ON THE WALL
you they are not going to be found in
a federal bureaucracy.
A radical, though perhaps wise, so
lution would be to do away not only
with No Child Left Behind, but with the
entire federal Department of Education.
Imagine if the $56 billion the federal
government plans to spend on educa
tion next year was instead raised and
spent locally, addressing local concerns
and local priorities. It may not be as
crazy as it sounds.
Former General Electric CEO Jack
Welch has been celebrated as a guru of
modem achievement. Taking the reigns
of GE in the early ’80s, Welch engi
neered a turnaround that prepared GE
to compete with well-financed and
highly effective firms from overseas.
One of the keys in GE’s strategy was to
pull out of any market where GE was
not either number one or number two.
Every year we spend more on educa
tion. But, as President Bush once
asked: “Is our children learning?” Not
really, especially compared to the rest
of the industrialized world. American
children speak only one language (and
that only barely), can hardly do math
and wouldn’t know the difference be
tween Montaigne, Machiavelli or a hole
in their heads.
The federal government’s quest to
educate our young people is fairing
only slightly better than its war on
drugs. We’re not number one, we’re
not number two. Maybe it’s time for
Uncle Sam to get out of the
education game.
And while we’re on the subject of
government waste, what’s the deal
with the Post Office? Every year it loses
more and more money. Meanwhile,
FedEx and UPS are raking it in hand
over fist. In fact, the delivery market
has proved so profitable that there is
now a third company trying to get in on
the action.
Back in the day when mail was de
livered by horse over insecure terrain,
it was probably best for the govern
ment to take responsibility for deliver
ing the mail. But now that multiple or
ganizations have proved they can turn
a profit in the delivery business, would
n’t it make more sense to privatize the
mail? That way companies like FedEx
and UPS can do what they do best: de
liver; and the government can do what
it does best: regulate.
Of course, none of this will ever take
place. One of the immutable laws of
government is that it’s easy to expand
yet almost impossible to shrink. The
best we can hope for is to restrain
growth and limit waste.
On a more local, politically realistic
level, we can stop expecting the federal
government to educate our children.
These are local issues that require local
solutions. And though no one likes to
hear it, we’re probably going to have to
open our wallets if education is some
thing we really value.
gabebradley@dailyemerald.com
■ Guest commentary
Feelings override funding process
A week ago today, a majority of the Programs Finance
Committee voted to reject the Oregon Commentator’s mis
sion statement. As the ASUO and Student Senate presi
dents, we both write to express our disapproval of this de
cision and to convey our confidence that the checks and
balances in place will ensure that all student groups are
properly funded.
During last Wednesday’s hearing, several members of
the PFC used their votes to voice student disgust for re
cent articles published by the Commentator. While we
too often disagree with the Commentator’s editorial deci
sions, it is of the utmost importance that our personal
feelings about a publication’s content do not interfere
with the funding process.
The PFC plays an important role on our campus: allocat
ing your incidental fees to a wide array of student groups in
an effort to enrich the college experience for us all.
The US Supreme Court’s Southworth decision affirms this
important supplement to our education while also introduc
ing viewpoint-neutrality as an imperative protection for stu
dents with unpopular beliefs. Southworth requires that “in
the interest of open discussion, (fee allocation) may not pre
fer some viewpoints to others. ”
In the case of the Oregon Commentator, PFC has rightly
recognized the benefit student publications provide to our
campus, and must not deny funding to this conservative
journal on the basis of its content. Should PFC manage the
unanimous vote needed to defund the Commentator, we
will work to prevent the proposal from moving through
Student Senate, after which it would meet certain veto by
the Executive.
The firmness of our response does not reflect a lack of
regard for the students deeply concerned about the Com
mentator’s subject matter. We hope instead to illustrate our
resolve to conduct a fair incidental fee process, respectful
of the Constitution’s First Amendment.
In short, PFC must not decide to insulate us from speech
we find distasteful and even vile. On the contrary, PFC
should continue to empower students by allowing a forum in
which we can debate issues any student finds meaningful.
Ending discussion by defunding the Commentator may seem
worthwhile at first glance, but is instead myopic. Social and
political progress is much less likely in an environment
where debate is stifled and ideas remain unchallenged.
The vigor of this dialogue is only possible on a cam
pus where students control, and correctly administer, the
incidental fees. Members of the PFC should preserve our
right to speech and properly fund the
Oregon Commentator.
Adam Petkun is ASUO president
and James George is Student Senate president
INBOX
Petition risks punishing
innocent senators
As most of you are aware by now,
a student is petitioning to recall the
ASUO Executive and most of the
student senators. The reasoning for
him doing so revolves around the
events of the ASUO retreat in the
fall. Because of a few senators’ and
non-senators’ actions, innocent sen
ators are being punished and could
possibly lose their positions within
ASUO. Group punishment for the
incidents is fine to a point, but it
is appalling when innocent senators
are getting unduly punished to
protect a few.
I ask those persons who engaged
in drinking and smoking at the
retreat to come forward and disclose
their involvement publicly. I will be
honest that I knew drinking was
more than likely going on at the re
treat, but I refused to partake. I will
do my part in the group punishment
but I refuse to be further and unduly
punished.
Kevin Day
Student Senator
■ Editorial
'Nuclear'
tactic would
wrongly end
filibusters
Americans are either excitedly or nervously
awaiting the day when President Bush will
nominate his first U.S. Supreme Court justice
and the monstrous congressional battle that
will surely follow. The battle for the highest
court in the land might be won or lost long
before any justice on the Rehnquist Court
steps down from their lifetime post.
Recent moves by conservatives suggest
they are contemplating a bureaucratic dirty
trick known as “the nuclear option” to dis
mantle the 200-year-old use of filibusters in
the Senate. It currently takes 60 votes to end a
filibuster (the GOP has 55 seats in the
Senate), which forces a narrow majority to
work with a narrow minority in certain im
portant matters, like with judicial nomina
tions. Senate Democrats have filibustered 10
Bush nominees and confirmed more than 200
to district and appellate courts due to con
cerns that they were ideologically extreme
and unfit to be judges.
The GOP has not been able to muster the
60 votes it needs to end the filibuster on these
nominees and force an up or down vote.
Rather than find judges who are less extreme,
some Republicans are pushing to change the
rules so that a simple majority could end a fil
ibuster. If this so-called “nuclear option” is
successful, one of the only checks and bal
ances to the power of the Republican Party,
which controls both the White House and
Congress, would disappear, as would our best
chance of keeping a radical Christian right
winger off the Supreme Court.
Appointing one or two more justices in the
mold of the insane Justice Scalia is the top priori
ty of the Christian right and President Bush. Get
ting his ultra-conservative nominees onto the fed
eral courts would pave the way to getting
ultra-conservatives on the High Court. The reper
cussions of this would be felt for a lifetime.
The majority of Americans feel that Democ
rats should be allowed to filibuster judicial
nominations, 48 percent to 39 percent, ac
cording to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News
poll. But the question that really matters is:
Does the GOP have the votes in the Senate to
execute the nuclear option? It is difficult to
say. According to Congressional Quarterly,
two Republicans, Sen. Lincoln Chafee and
Sen. John McCain, disagree with the rule
change. Two other Republicans, Sen. Susan
Collins and Sen. John Warner, have expressed
strong reservations. Assuming they both
break ranks, and assuming no Democrats do
(which is a big assumption given the spine
less Democratic Party), the fate of the nuclear
option could rest on a single Republican vote.
That vote could be Oregon Sen. Gordon
Smith. He has publicly stated that he is unde
cided about the issue. Please write the senator
and let him know the majority of his con
stituents, just like the majority of Americans,
want the filibuster rules left alone. If you do
only one political act this year, this is the one.
The fate of the Supreme Court and many of the
laws we consider central to the American way
of life are currently hanging in the balance.
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the 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 commentanes 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 submis
sions are published at the discretion of the Emerald.