Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
PARKER HOWELL
EDITOR IN CHIEF
SHAORA BEESLEY
MANAGING EDITOR
MEGHANN M. CUNIFF
JARED PABEN
NEWS EDITORS
EVASYLWESTER
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
KELLY BROWN
KATY GAGNON
CHRISTOPHER HAGAN
BRITTNI MCCLENAHAN
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTERS
JOE BAILEY
EMILY SMITH
PART-TIME NEWS REPORTERS
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
SCOTIJ. ADAMS
LUKEANDREWS
JEFFREY DRANSFELDT
SPORTS REPORTERS
AMY LICHTY
PULSE EDITOR
TREVOR DAVIS
KRISTEN GERHARD
ANDREW MCCOLLUM
PULSE REPORTERS
AILEE SIATTR
COMMENTARY EDITOR
GABE BRADLEY
IESSICA DERLEIH
ARMYFETH
COLUMNISTS
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTO EDITOR
NICOLE BARKER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
KATE HORTON
zaneritt
PHOTOGRAPHERS
KATIE GLEASON
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER
JONAH SCIIROGIN
DESIGN EDITOR
JOHN AYRES
JONNY BAGGS
MOLLY BEDFORD
KERI SPANGLER
DESIGNERS
CHRIS TODD
GRAPHIC ARTIST
AARON DUCHATEAU
ILLUSTRATOR
ALEXANDRA BURGUIERES
REBECCA TAYLOR
COPY CHIEFS
JENNY DORNER
BRYN JANSSON
JOSH NORRIS
JENNA ROHRBACHER
MATE TIFFANY
COPYEDITORS
STEVEN NEUMAN
ONLINE/SUPPLEMENTS EDITOR
TIMOTHY ROBINSON
WEBMASTER
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
LAUNA DE GIUSTI
RECEPTIONIST
JOE BEES
ALAN FULLERTON
RYAN JOHNSON
ROB WEGNER
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LE1DELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
JOHN KELLY
LINDSEY FERGUSON
WINTER GIBBS
KATE HIRONAKA
DESI MCCORMICK
STEPHEN MILLER
KATHRYN O'SHEA-EVANS
EMILY PHILBIN
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
BONA LEE
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
USA CLARK
ANDO
AMANDA KANTOR
KER1 SPANGLER
KAnE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
JAMIE ACKERMAN
CAMERON GAUT
JONAH SCHROGIN
DESIGNERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day dunng 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
Take the corporation out of rejuvenation
It has been more than six weeks
since Katrina devastated New Orleans
and other coastal communities in
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
People are returning to their homes,
or what is left of them, to face an un
certain future. Many of those people
have lost their livelihood. Schools are
closed, city governments are broke
and many small businesses have been
completely destroyed. The Gulf Coast
needs to start over.
This could be a good thing. New
Orleans especially could use a clean
slate. The public school system before
Katrina was a disaster, with schools
literally falling apart. The police force
was piagued with corruption. There
was widespread poverty. The giant
cloud of Katrina’s destruction was
lined with the silver of rebuilding.
Only that silver lining won’t neces
sarily help the people hit the hardest
by the hurricane. President Bush as
sured America that the rebuilding
jobs would go to people from the dev
astated areas, but that may turn out to
be an empty promise. Immediately af
ter Katrina, FEMA signed millions of
dollars worth of no-bid contracts to
huge corporations like Halliburton.
The new acting director of FEMA,
David Paulison, assured the Senate
on an Oct. 6 visit with the Homeland
Security Committee that many of
these contracts will go under review,
and possibly be put up for bid to al
low locals an opportunity to benefit
from rebuilding. This is a step in the
right direction, but as it turns out,
only the four biggest no-bid con
tracts will be affected.
Even where there was competition,
Gulf Coast companies were not al
ways given a fair deal, let alone the
advantage they deserve. For example,
Sen. Carl M. Levin of Michigan noted
that a Mississippi modular classroom
builder (remember the portables in
high school?) lost out on a contract
with the Army Corps of Engineers to
build 300 classrooms. The deal went
to an Alaskan company charging
twice as much.
To make matters worse, President
Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act
of 1931 in the affected areas. The
ARMY FETH
RHETORIC CHECK
Davis-Bacon Act requires that govern
ment contractors pay workers the pre
vailing local wage. The effects of this
act were almost immediate. Levin
brought to light the fact that union
maintenance workers at the Super
dome and Convention Center were re
placed with out-of-state workers.
These new employees earn a lower
wage and receive no benefits.
Davis-Bacon was there to prevent
just such things from happening. The
government overpays corporations for
work those same corporations under
pay their employees to do.
Another one of Bush’s rebuilding
proposals is the Gulf Opportunity
Zone, which gives tax breaks to small
businesses as an incentive for eco
nomic growth. This is a good idea,
but the tax breaks will also be avail
able to big business, including casi
nos. Mississippi has already backed
down on some of its strict gambling
rules and allowed formerly floating
casinos to build on the coast. Now
Bush is trying to give those casinos
the economic incentives Mississippi
has consciously denied them. Casinos
may provide jobs and revenue to
communities, but they also contribute
to gambling addiction.
The advantage big business has in
America is terrifying at times. A new
bankruptcy law goes into affect
Monday that makes it more difficult
for citizens to default on debts. Just
after this law passed through con
gress, United Airlines defaulted on
its employee pension plan. Accord
ing to the Center on Budget and Poli
cy Priorities, 4.3 million people have
fallen into poverty since 2000. The
Washington Post reported that CEO
salaries increased 313 percent be
tween 1990 and 2003. High gas
prices for consumers mean big prof
its for oil companies.
Corporate interests have become
more important than the interests of
American citizens. The media do not
report fully on this disturbing trend
because they are part of corporate
America. For example, in 2004, Sin
clair Broadcasting Group, owner of 62
local TV stations nation wide, forbid
seven of its ABC stations to air the
April 30 episode of Nightline, where
Ted Koppel read the names and
showed the pictures of the then 721
American soldiers who had lost their
lives during the invasion and occupa
tion of Iraq. The special episode was
a tribute to fallen soldiers. They gave
the ultimate sacrifice for their country,
and national recognition was appro
priate. A statement from Sinclair read,
“The action appears to be motivated
by a political agenda designed to un
dermine the efforts of the United
States in Iraq.” A powerful corpora
tion was allowed to make a moral
judgment for citizens; this may be
legal, but I cannot see how. The ac
tion of Sinclair here blatantly vio
lates the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of
a free press.
An informed citizenry is essential
to democracy. Equality of opportuni
ty is essential to capitalism. Neither of
these ideals is guaranteed in today’s
America. Now there is an entire city
to be built from the ground up. It is
the perfect environment to build a
shining example of modem America,
but it is also in danger of turning into
a corporate playground.
So, as citizens, we must keep an
eye on New Orleans. We cannot let
the current corporate and political en
vironment dictate the future of this
unique city. It is the people of the Gulf
Coast who make it what it is. After the
Chicago fire of 1871, the displaced res
idents rebuilt their own city. The
same should be done now. No one
knows the land better, no one cares as
much and no one deserves it more
than the locals.
afeth@dailyernemld.com
INBOX
Emerald free to reflect
varied opinions
In response to Devlin Croal’s open
letter of critique (“Decision to run of
fensive cartoon misguided,” ODE,
Oct. 10), I propose the idea that a
newspaper that doesn’t create contro
versy from time to time is not worth
reading. What is the value in reading
what everyone agrees with? I con
cede that the Emerald’s primary pur
pose is to inform and reflect the Uni
versity population, but to charge the
Emerald with Mr. Croal’s values of
ethical integrity does not allow the
paper to reflect divergent views. This
paper is reflective of the many views
that work to create it. The Oregon
Daily Emerald is not the keeper of
one’s singular mores but instead
holds appeal in various ways to its
many readers.
The nature of a university is to be
exposed to alternative views and
have the freedom to decide what you
will receive and what you will reject,
while respecting the rights of others
to have varied perspectives. There
will always be a veritable butt to
every joke, and no joke is by all
means funny to everyone. This is not
to say we have the right to stipulate
that one’s own personal opinions
ought to be reflected in the newspa
per he or she reads when that paper
is meant to be a reflection of a multi
tude of opinions.
Brian Tuohy
University senior
An open letter to
journalists of Eugene
Shame! Does the University admin
istration have the Emerald editorial
board so badly whipped? That is cer
tainly how it appears. Since when did
the University publication take a
stand against student protest? Since
when was objective journalism so fla
grantly violated?
Brian Bogart has produced clear ev
idence of the weapons research that
the Emerald editors “hope” isn’t being
conducted. He has much of that evi
dence available at his location across
from Johnson Hall, open and avail
able to journalists and the general
public alike. Instead of comfortably
sitting in an institution that conducts
deadly weapons research, Brian is try
ing to change the University he cares
about. The field work that Bogart is
doing is far more valuable and educa
tional than reading texts and taking
tests on a subject he is already an ex
pert on (with multiple college de
grees). But the Emerald editorial
board, the body in charge of dis
pensing our school’s public informa
tion, would rather we all sit blind
and happy in our ivory tower. Wow.
Great journalism.
The University of Oregon has the
opportunity to be a great school, a
leader in a new progressive move
ment. Brian Bogart’s new organiza
tion, centered on strikeforpeace.org,
has some very interesting new ideas
and a lot of very well-substantiated in
formation. I have one message for the
University administration and the
Emerald: The students are angry with
the University’s, state’s and country’s
priorities, and as our public servants,
we demand that you provide a fair fo
rum for our dissent.
Julian Michels
University student
■ Editorial
Harassment
policy update
aids faculty
and students
The relationship between a student and his
or her professor is a key component of the col
lege experience. Both parties must work closely
together and, ideally, have mutual respect for
one another. But what happens when this rela
tionship becomes romantic or sexual?
Since 1999, an average of five sexual ha
rassment cases have been reported per year at
Oregon University System campuses, which
are used by about 80,000 students and 12,000
faculty and staff, according to an OUS
press release.
Many question whether a student and a pro
fessor should ever engage in a romantic rela
tionship, and understandably so. Although col
lege-age students are often as mature (and
possibly as old as or older than) their profes
sors, there is always the distinct possibility that
adding sexual politics to an academic environ
ment will result in power play.
Students are at risk because professors have
control over their academic standing. Yet pro
fessors are at risk if a consensual relationship
later is interpreted in a courtroom as a case of
sexual harassment.
New OUS sexual harassment guidelines ap
proved last month should help clear up some of
the aforementioned touchy issues involved in ro
mantic relationships between professors, stu
dents or any two University members with differ
ent levels of academic or administrative power.
By September 2006, the University must imple
ment the new OUS guidelines, including a man
date that such “power differential” relationships
be immediately reported to a supervisor.
The policies were created alter a temale
Western Oregon University student sued a pro
fessor at the school, alleging he sexually ha
rassed her. He claimed they had a consensual
romantic relationship, an assertion she denied.
The new OUS regulations should prevent
such situations from occurring because any
romantic relationship between a professor
and a student would immediately be report
ed. As long as such reports are filed and avail
able, there will be significantly less confusion
as to the consensual, or non-consensual, na
ture of a relationship.
This policy is a good mechanism for universi
ties to tackle the potential problem of sexual ha
rassment. Professors accused of sexual harass
ment will have some protection from false
allegations, but students will be safer as well.
University officials are now responsible for en
suring that students need not fear academic
ramifications should a personal relationship
with a professor turn sour.
Although some may suggest the new policy
violates personal privacy, it is important to re
member that the only time such a relationship
report would be analyzed would be upon a sex
ual harassment report. Universities are express
ly not allowed, for instance, to fire a professor if
he or she reports a relationship with a student.
These reporting policies also are not unique
to universities. Some businesses require em
ployees to sign legal agreements before enter
ing consensual relationships.
Thankfully, OUS policy-makers realized it is
impossible to completely prevent romantic re
lationships between students and professors on
campuses. Moreover, as long as both partners
are making decisions as consenting adults, it is
hardly the responsibility of any university to en
gage in such regulation.
The OUS policy does assist in creating an at
mosphere where romantic relationships have
less chance of influencing either a student’s
grade or a professor’s reputation.