Editorial

By now we all now about the sad plight of the squirrels. Thanks to the fearless reporting of our intrepid Oregon Daily Emerald , the campus community has finally been forced to confront its own ignorance regarding the state of abject poverty and total lack of nuts in which some squirrels are forced to live. Many of us have been all to content to turn a blind eye to the deplorable living conditions these squirrels must endure even though right on the other side of the same campus an upper class of squirrels must endure even though right on the other side of the same campus an upper class of squirrels enjoy more nuts than they could ever make use of in a single lifetime.

With no thought to the hell storm of consequences that such an expose might cause to be rained down upon them from the powers that be, the Emerald staff girded their loins, set a grim visage upon their faces and did something too often shunned by the majority of this campus - they what was right.

But the Emerald isn't the only group on campus which has planted its flat feet squarely on that unstable and often infirm ground known as integrity and conviction. The ASUO Executive has also staked its claim as a leader in social awareness by soundly coming out against fund raising.

Leading the crusade against the insidious effects of fund raising is Vice President Ben Unger. Unger lodged vehement protest against a proposed "donor wall" in the EMU. As planned, the wall would be a monument used to commemorate the private individuals, alumni, foundations and corporations who helped the UO Foundation's Oregon Campaign reach its goal of $200 million in endowments. At the most recent EMU Board meeting, Unger expressed concern that this would bring the University even closer to becoming one giant advertisement for big business. Unger identified this as a continuation of a trend toward commercialization that has undermined free speech on campus. Sadie Rogers, Executive Chief of Staff, likewise registered disgust with the UO Foundation whose staff, she alleges, actually discussed how to get donors to contribute even more money in the future. This is a bold stance to take, especially considering that's pretty much what those people are paid to do.

Unger and UO Foundation representative Duncan McDonald then engaged in a true battle of wits as each tried to outdo the other by naming as many "bad" or "good" donors as possible. This repartee ultimately culminated in the EMU Board deciding to put off any decision for the immediate future. And while Unger and other students at the meeting touched on student sovereignty, no one took much issue with the lackluster performance of the UO Foundation in terms of researching alternative to putting the wall in the EMU. McDonald later explained this by pointing out that the Foundation has, apparently, "thought about" the Knight Library as a possible site for the wall and by citing vague concerns that an outdoor monument might be less aesthetically pleasing to donors and could easily be vandalized. Despite these and other fairly decent arguments for putting the wall in the EMU, al this gives the impression that no matter what students think, an interadministrative handshake may be all it takes to start construction of the donor wall.

Later that same day, Unger took his battle to the Student Senate benchmarking hearing. The hearing allowed Unger another opportunity to gripe at the EMU.

Unger attacked the EMU Board's proposal entirely, initially recommending that the Senate allow them zero percent budget growth, a drastic difference from the 5.5 percent the EMU requested. By way of explaining his logic, Unger pointed in particular to two proposed additions to the EMU professional staff: a grant writer and a marketing specialist. EMU Board members Kim Guevara and Jenna Wasson argued that ideally the positions would more than pay for themselves by bringing in thousands of dollars in both grants for improvements and by more effectively marketing the services of the EMU, and the campus in general, to the community. Unger brushed these arguments aside, asserting that students could do the job just as well at almost no cost.

Of course, Unger is right - there's probably more fat to be trimmed from the EMU than anything else students control (one hesitates to use words like "inept" or "mismanaged" when describing the EMU, but only for a second or so). Nevertheless, arguing against EMU Fund raising efforts as a way t trim that fat seems, frankly, like something a nutria would say.

We are now, however, a squirrel campus, and the Commentator would like to join the Emerald in calling for greater squirrel awareness. Look to the squirrels, my friends, for in them lies our salvation.