By Miguel Sanchez-Rutledge, For The Emerald

Students at South Eugene High School walked out of their classes on Friday in protest of the lack of action taken by the administration in handling allegations of sexual assault by another student. Hundreds of students marched along West 19th Avenue and by the Amazon bike path. The few hundred students chanted and held signs that read, “End rape culture,” and “Protect our students.”

The protest was organized by Mia Dillon, a sophomore at SEHS. She called for the youth of Eugene to take action because of the inaction of the administration.

Mia Dillon, A sophmore at SEHS, organized the protest and presented a statement she had written in regards to the sexual assault allegations. (Miguel Sanchez-Rutledge/For The Emerald)

“The goal of this protest is to bring attention to the sexual violence in our community and the way victims have been disregarded,” Dillon said. “We also want to bring attention to the rape culture that is rampant in the world today. There is a system in place in society that makes survivors of sexual violence (and) harassment feel small, a system that we believe the South Eugene High School administration is contributing to. We are young people who want a better future. A safe future. A future where sexual misconduct is not tolerated or ignored. Action has not been taken by the adults of the administration, so action has been taken by the youth of Eugene.”

In an email released to parents and students the night before the protest was set to happen, Andy Dey, Principal of SEHS, denounced the protest and highlighted the progress the school has made with handling sexual assault.

“Part of our efforts,” Dey said,“have also included talk-back sessions following theater performances containing themes touching on sexual assault, increased access to on-site community partners that provide support for victims of sexual assault and training for faculty / staff to help respond to student concerns regarding unhealthy relationships. Finally, we have added staff who are to directly support an ongoing school-wide narrative about healthy communities and healthy relationships.”

The ending of the statement issued a warning for any students planning on skipping class.

“As for the planned walk-out tomorrow,” Dey said, “please know it is not a school sanctioned event and as such we will not be able to excuse absences from class for that reason. We will have campus security staff, our school resource officer and administration on site, as always, but the best way to ensure safe operation of the school is for students to be in class. Thank you for understanding in the event your student is marked as absent for that reason.”

A protest comes after a student at SEHS is accused of raping and sexually assaulting multiple students and students no longer feel safe, according to Jesse Pearce, a junior at SEHS, who took part in the protest.

Jesse Pearce, a junior at SEHS, marches with fellow students in protest of sexual assault allegations towards another student. “It’s not a safe learning environment for students.” (Miguel Sanchez-Rutledge/For The Emerald)

“I am here because of the sexual assault epidemic that has been going on at this school,” Pearce said. “People have been largely silent, including the administration. The first time that they actually acknowledged it [sexual assault allegations] was happening was because of this demonstration being planned that they got wind of it and sent out an email. That was the first email they ever sent out about this problem.”

School officials and police were on scene to keep watch over the unofficial march and to make sure students didn’t move the protest inside, where classes were still in session.

The investigation into the incidents is being conducted by the Eugene Police Department and is still ongoing. No details into the incidents have been released to the public.

“It’s not a safe learning environment for students,” Pearce said. “We’re forcing the administration to talk about it. We’re forcing a conversation to happen.”

Miguel Sanchez-Rutledge is a senior at the University of Oregon. You can find his website here.

The post Students at South Eugene High School march against sexual assault appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Hannah Stewart, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

“What happened to law school? I had no idea you were even thinking about teaching.”

When I tell people that I’m planning to join Teach For America and teach elementary school in Indianapolis next year, I’ve received every possible reaction. My professor is excited that I’ll get to share my love of learning with my students. And, admittedly, my parents are nervous about me taking on challenging work so far from home. But mostly, people are confused.

I’ve grappled with how to best respond to these questions. Do I tell them that leading a classroom is the most challenging profession I could have chosen for next year? Do I tell them about the ninth grade teacher that changed my life? Do I tell them that I don’t really know how global development and teaching come together, but that I’m pretty sure there’s no better use of my time and energy?

When it comes down to it, it’s all of those reasons, plus one more. I believe that the classroom is a powerful place for social change, where all of my identities and experiences can come together to help pave a different path for my future students. When I think about the issues I’m most passionate about, the issues that I’ve been working on as a student — immigration, equal access, voting rights, feminism — I come to realize that there’s no better place to tackle them head-on than in the classroom. After all, education is the most powerful tool at our disposal to disrupt inequity and create opportunity.

As an International Studies major, I’ve narrowed my interests to human rights and global development. Through my studies I have come to believe that education is the cornerstone on which all other rights are realized. By facilitating someone’s right to education, you give them the tools to advocate for themselves as change agents in their own life. By providing my students a quality education, I hope to inspire them to become the future civic leaders of our nation, and powerful players in progress and change.

As a corps member, I know I’ll face incredible obstacles as I tackle these complex and systemic challenges. But I also know that I’ll grow my skills to thrive in different settings and gain a strong network of innovators to lean on. But what’s more, I’ll continue to shape my values and beliefs, find my voice as a leader, and more clearly define the impact I want to make on the world.

I’ve worn many hats during my time as a student — Resident Assistant, tour guide, tutor — and all of these experiences have helped to define who I am, my values, and what I’m most passionate about. But through all of these different experiences, I’ve found a common thread: we must be the change we seek in this world.

Whether it is education, law, technology, politics or any other career path, it is important you discover what drives you. With the looming question about what to do after graduation, and the pesky questions from friends and family, I charge you to find your platform.  Let that guide you to create real change in whatever it is you are meant to do.

So as you consider which path you’ll forge after graduation, I encourage you to listen to the voice that tells you to do what’s a little unexpected. Listen to the experiences that have defined your college career thus far. Step out of your comfort zone. I hope you’ll find that your path is richer for it.

Hannah Stewart is an International Studies major. She is also a 2017 Teach For America – Indianapolis corps member.

The post Guest Viewpoint: Find your platform for change appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Gregory R. Pulliam, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

President’s Society member resigning from UO advisory boards / discontinuing annual giving

It is with a heavy heart and a tremendous sense of frustration I write this letter.  Due to the unfortunate announcement the UO Foundation has made regarding its intent to divest from all fossil fuel related investments, I am officially resigning from the PPPM Advisory Committee and the A&AA Dean’s Advisory Board.  I am also discontinuing my charitable giving to the University.

I have been giving to the University and volunteering in an advisory capacity for approximately 10 years, ever since PPPM awarded me their Distinguished Young Alumni Award.  My wife and I have established an endowment in the PPPM Department.  I have chosen to do this because the University means the world to me.  It has as much to do with who I am and my professional progression as any other institution I’ve touched in my life.  There is not a day that goes by, in my professional or personal life, I’m not employing an aspect of the skill set I was endowed by the University.

I work for ExxonMobil.  It’s worth noting that a significant portion of my giving, and the only reason we were able to establish the endowment in PPPM and reach President’s Society status, is due to my employer’s generous 3-to-1 Higher Education Matching Gift program.  I can no longer in good faith have ExxonMobil’s shareholder resources be allocated to the University.

Furthermore, I have worked in the oil and gas industry for more than 15 years and I know that it would be fundamentally impossible to divest of all fossil fuel related investments.  Will the University divest of all companies that depend on fossil fuels?  Will the University no longer purchase books from companies that rely on fossil fuel energy to produce their products?  Will the University ban usage of the following products:  computers, phones, cell phones, tablets, protective helmets, jerseys, cleats, footballs, cups, stickers, water resistant jackets, nylon backpacks, paint, umbrellas, Kevlar for police officers, bicycles and vehicle tires, chairs, tables, carpets and pens?  I ask this last question because every one of these products is manufactured with derivatives of petroleum.

There is no single more fundamentally important component to the wealth, health, prosperity and development of this country (and hence, the University) than the safe, reliable and affordable supply of energy we have enjoyed for 100+ years. One could accurately argue that energy is the most fundamental of human needs.  There is no clean water without such energy.  There is no clean air without such energy.  There would not have been the advancements in medicine/medical care without such energy.  Who would have thought such a “gift” and fundamental necessity would become a political football whereby misinformed political hysteria would lead to such unfortunate decisions.

I found the following quote regarding fossil fuel divestment by Harvard University President, Drew Faust, which represents what I think is a logical and reasoned counter to the UO’s decision:

“I don’t think that divestment is an appropriate tool, because I don’t think the endowment should be used for exerting political pressure…It should not be used as a weapon to exert pressure on one group or another.”

To the issue of global warming…with all due respect, it doesn’t matter if you or I believe it is happening.  It either is or it isn’t.  Let’s say it does exist.  The answer will clearly be mitigation.  This mitigation will be designed by engineers.  The energy industry employs thousands of the brightest engineers in the world.  My company believes the issue of global climate change requires action via the collaboration of governments, companies, consumers and other stakeholders to create global solutions.  In fact, if you go to www.exxonmobil.com you can read about how we are on the forefront of research and development via significant investments in advanced biofuels, carbon capture and sequestration, light-weighting plastics, packaging reduction and emerging power generation technologies.  This commitment to technology and developing solutions manifests itself in our partnerships with such esteemed institutions as MIT, Stanford, Georgia Tech, Northwestern, Michigan State and Princeton to name only a few.  See, we believe the mere question of whether warming exists and the possible human causal relationship requires substantive action.  The demonization of an industry (and all of the hard working women and men in that industry) or inherently inflexible theoretical/political rhetoric or “stances” will never address the issue of climate change for the betterment of anybody.

Any cerebral being recognizes that in order to meet the global energy needs for the next 50 years we will require an “all of the above” energy mix, including fossil fuels, solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, etc.  It’s worth noting here that my company’s Refining and Supply Company is a top supplier of lubes to the wind industry and our Chemical Company is a top supplier of films to the solar panel industry.

Even as I write this letter I feel for the alum(s) who might happen to work for the next industry that falls out of political favor with the University and has to regrettably make the equally difficult decision I have had to make.

I would have thought an institution I hold in such high regard, and have actively proudly promoted throughout my domestic and international travels, would have made a more deliberate/informed decision versus joining the echo chamber of academia on such an important issue.

You see, I am unapologetically proud to work for a company driven by delivering safe, reliable and affordable energy to the world.  Furthermore, it is immensely rewarding to work in an industry which is not merely a byproduct of, but rather an engine of our economy.

I am well aware that my decision to break formal ties to the University will have no substantive impact on the University or its decision.  Ironically, the most fundamentally important value the University instilled in me was to “take a stand for what you believe…and constantly challenge what you believe.”  A U of O professor once told me, “…one whom holds no prescribed set of guiding principles is destined to forever be a follower…and never a leader.”  With all due respect to the University, it is disappointing to see that you have merely decided to follow rather than lead on such an important issue.

My giving will now be directed to the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, where I completed my graduate degree.  In that they granted me a full fellowship to attend, the UO’s decision has enabled me to “right” something I’ve struggled with for some time.

The University will hold no less a place of import in my life.  Sadly, this sense of import will no longer be externally manifested in promoting, volunteering or financially contributing to the University.

Sincerely

Gregory R. Pulliam

The post Guest Viewpoint: Resignation due to UO Foundation’s divestment from fossil fuels appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Maya O’Boyle, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

To resist hate, we need to stand up to organizations that promote it here in the Northwest. The 2016 election has uncovered many disturbing realities in our society. Language used over the past year has taught us that we need to be more vigilant in resisting the xenophobic, racist, homophobic and anti-worker policies that have been pushed not only this year, but throughout our country’s history.

However, in the midst of it all, we have seen people fight back across the country. If we, in Oregon, are going to take a stand against this bigotry, we can start by tackling it in our own communities and on our own campus. Right here in the Pacific Northwest, there are organizations that promote and push the hateful rhetoric and policies we have seen throughout this election.

One of those groups is the Murdock Charitable Trust, an organization based in Vancouver, Washington that funds a variety of organizations not only all over the Pacific Northwest but across the country, seeking to roll back the progress made in America. Among them is the Freedom Foundation, which is partially funded by the Murdock Trust as well as networks tied to the Koch brothers. Anti-labor in their approach, the Freedom Foundation attacks nurses, school teachers, firefighters and other public officials in the Northwest in an attempt to dismantle labor unions, undercutting the importance of giving workers a voice in their places of employment. Considering all of the important contributions unions have made to our country—fighting for better benefits, higher wages and time off of work—it is important we stand with workers and condemn those who fund efforts to diminish their rights.

The Murdock Trust also funds the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which pushes an extreme anti-LGBTQ agenda all across the United States. In perhaps their most famous piece of legislation, the group pushed for the passage of the North Carolina Bathroom Bill, which barred trans people from using the bathrooms that align with their gender identity. One of the organization’s co-founders has even said that AIDS was God’s way of punishing the LGTBQ community.

By choosing to fund extreme anti-labor and anti-LGBTQ organizations, the Murdock Trust is working against the friends, family and neighbors that enrich our community. Perhaps most alarming is the proximity of the Murdock Trust to our university; it is hard to fathom how such hateful efforts are being funded right in our own backyard. As students, we must ensure the safety and support of all in our community, and make sure we do not stand idly by as their rights and very existences are attacked.

As such, we need to take a stand against the Murdock Trust and their harmful funding. On Wednesday, Nov. 16 at 7 p.m. in the Miller room of the EMU, the ASUO Senate will be meeting to take a stance on the Murdock Trust and their funding organizations that attack the interests of University of Oregon students. Come stand in support of the resolution condemning the Murdock Trust, as well as in solidarity with your fellow students.

The post Guest Viewpoint: Stand up against organizations that promote hate appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

Dear President Schill,

I write to you as a UO faculty member expressing a stance but also trying to understand the lay of the socio-moral landscape, here and beyond.  The recent incident where UO law professor Nancy Shurtz wore blackface to a private, off-campus Halloween party has clearly stirred the turbid waters of discontent. In your response to this and similar incidents, you must govern while integrating many orthogonal pressures and views — I do not envy you.  As a white male, I cannot claim to understand the full cultural gravity of her actions nor how she may have made certain members of our community feel – indeed, we should all strive to consider those things before we act (she apparently did).  I can see how members of our community, from a variety of backgrounds, might be offended by her costume. However, as she was exercising her rights to free expression at an off-campus private event, I am concerned that our response to this incident blurs the line between personal and professional life, whose contrast should not be assailed.

It is unclear to me which is the morally consistent lesson to be gleaned. It seems that in the modern context and legal climate we react reflexively to such incidents before, or even in the absence of, any actual offense, we assume offense on behalf of others, or we abstract the offense to hypotheticals. Offense is a subjective sentiment whose erasure can never be complete nor guaranteed across all people and contexts — attempting to walk that path is futile and dangerous to our freedoms of expression and speech.  Likewise, claims of “cultural appropriation” are asserted by a self-identified group as ownership of dress, music or other forms of expression when, in fact, such things cannot be owned in the same way that style cannot be owned nor can I be told which music is “mine” to listen to. Such claims stifle the natural and creative growth that sprouts at cultural interfaces and asserts that we each have, know, and will adhere to our cultural “place” — if that is not racist, I don’t know what is.

Halloween is a holiday where we celebrate, exercise and experiment with our ability to take on new and different forms – for fun and maybe even empathy. Is the University going to publish a list of approved costumes and then brandish enforcement at off-campus events?  If a gender-fluid student cross-dressed at a party and in so doing offended another student with more conservative sensibilities, how should we handle that? Shurtz intended to open a discussion around the racial inequity at Brown University’s medical school – a topic behind which I am certain many of our most beloved racial equity crusaders would rally.  I wonder how they would view this incident – as critically important to furthering racial justice or a distraction from issues like racially motivated police brutality, socioeconomic gaps in educational access, or the gross racial inequity of the War on Drugs.  The current response rings closer to a dinner bell to sate a mob’s desire for blood than an actual redress of concerns that leverage a perfect opportunity to teach a whole community about racial issues.  Alternatively said, maybe we should ask ourselves — what does the current response cultivate: productive discourse or an atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding?

I am deeply concerned that we are enabling an atmosphere where the hammer of “justice” is brought down swiftly before an investigation ascertains facts, intentions or damages – all of which are relevant – and where shame, fear of reprisal and threatening of livelihood become the de facto tools of the body politic for silencing anyone who goes against the grain, regardless of the University’s stated policies. We are without question inconsistently applying our morals.  Consider the University’s public stance of support for LGBTQA+ students, faculty and staff – I have yet to see community outcry or administrative censure against the conservative religious and political groups on campus that pass judgment on these lifestyles, refer to them as “sinful” and spread messages of intolerance.  Indeed, their views on such issues (and more) deeply offend me, but I respect their right to practice and even disseminate their message. Regardless of how strongly I disagree with that message, they should be free from the emotionally driven backlash being demonstrated here. Extending the current logic, it would be supremely inappropriate for the University to discipline or criticize a community member for attending or proselytizing for an organization that espoused such views, especially off-campus.  Similarly, we should never seek to obstruct or silence a political group, even if their candidate spewed messages of xenophobia, bigotry and misogyny.  Many times I have walked around campus and heard students and staff listening to music with deeply racist, misogynistic and/or homophobic lyrics that are offensive to me and likely many at our institution – do we have the right to stop them from listening to that music?  Should they be disciplined, expelled or terminated?  For me personally, the answers are “no” – but if the opportunity arises, I will be sure to engage them on these important and delicate topics in an instructive, rather than punitive, spirit.

The monolithic and draconian response of some faculty and students, especially in light of Shurtz’ intentions and the subjective nature of offense, are astonishing.  To quote from the Law School’s response to this incident:

“It doesn’t matter what your intentions were.  It doesn’t matter if it was protected by the First Amendment. Blackface is patently offensive.  It is overtly racist.  It is wildly inappropriate.  It reflects a profound lack of judgment.  There is no excuse.”

It is worth repeating that law professors just issued a statement: “It doesn’t matter if it was protected by the First Amendment.” That is exactly the kind of verbal bludgeoning from an authoritative source that closes minds and enables public sentiment to trump inalienable human rights, the same rights whose past infringement I hope we all denounce.  Despite Shurtz’ clear desire to open discourse on the very issues of race that loom large, these Law School professors are asserting, against the very intention of the First Amendment, that popular opinion on what is acceptable should dictate private actions — this is precisely how tyranny creeps into control.

In step, the now circulating student petition reads:

“We stand with the Students, Alumni, Faculty, Staff and Greater Community Members who have found these actions offensive, and hereby demand the immediate resignation of law professor Nancy Shurtz.”

Undoubtedly, given the current socio-political climate around race, Title IX mandates, and Eugene’s own checkered past it was in poor taste and even poorer judgment for the faculty member in question to don such make-up, however, to quote two portions of your recent “Open Mike”:

“The belief that an opinion is pernicious, false and in any other way despicable, detestable, offensive, or ‘just wrong’ cannot be grounds for its suppression.”

And presumably should not be grounds for termination of employment, the ruin of a hard-earned career, nor public harassment and humiliation.

“… sometimes professors or classmates might say things that angered or even offended them. But the antidote to speech that one doesn’t like is not to shut down that speech. That is what totalitarian governments do.”

Indeed. The way we dress (costumes and other), the music we listen to and stances we espouse send messages to our community. Those messages may challenge, offend, irk, disappoint, confuse or intrigue us and we should consider with the utmost care what those messages are and if we want to broadcast them.  However, if they are not infringing on the educational equity of and opportunities for our students, nor jeopardizing the safe and productive functioning of our University, what legal or moral jurisdiction do we have to censor, regulate, or adjudicate those messages or messengers?  How do we exorcise the specter of offense and learn to distinguish it from genuine threats to intellectual, cultural and expressive freedoms, while maintaining those same freedoms for all, on and off campus?  In the haste to correct the many real and painful wrongs of the past and present, let us be mindful of the future shackles we may be forging — this is beginning to feel like the next installment of the Inquisition.  I urge us all to strive toward the right side of history, where rational and respectful discourse, critical thinking and recognition and amelioration of our biases will always afford us the high ground, and where, counterintuitively, thinking out-ranks feeling.

Finally, the notion that intention is irrelevant in this victimless situation is an attractive but absurd argument by those who seek punitive measures to bolster their case in the court of social justice.  Consider that in our personal interactions with friends, family, strangers and adversaries intention is a crucial component of how we interpret their message, how we respond to their message, what actions we take and which narratives we construct.  Why should this situation be any different?  She is a member of this community (inappropriately) drawing well-intended attention to an important issue that affects us all.

It is a sad testament to the current state of our “free” speech that even writing this letter seems too risky to pen under my own name. Those that would seek to invalidate my stance based on my race and background commit the same offense they decry — invalidation of whole persons based on race – this logical fallacy was once called ad hominem.

Sincerely,
Prof. R
College of Arts and Sciences
University of Oregon

PS – For clarity, I do not know the professor in question, nor am I appraised of any additional facts beyond what was published or sent via campus correspondence, The Daily Emerald and local news.

The post Guest viewpoint: Defending blackface appeared first on Emerald Media.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Michael Hames-García, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

An open letter to President Schill regarding Nancy Shurtz’s use of blackface

November 4, 2016

Recent events at the University of Oregon have been troubling for many of us. I write to you as someone who identifies as neither black nor white, but who grew up in a nation built to a great extent by white violence against black people. I write in the hopes of contributing to a necessary, important, painful and extremely difficult conversation at our institution.

Part of the problem with blackface is that white people don’t know why it’s a problem. It’s impossible to understand why black people are so angered by its use unless one knows what it is that black people see when they see white people in blackface. From the perspective of the harm done, it doesn’t matter what the white person’s intention was.

Nothing about the history of what white people have done to black people and other people of color is shocking to people of color. We know white people hung, burned alive and dismembered not hundreds, but thousands of black men and women, indigenous men and women, Mexican, Chinese and Japanese men and women, and others for well over a hundred years. We know it was done with impunity. We know it was done publicly. We know they took genitalia from lynched men and women and collected them as souvenirs. We know they posed for pictures and made postcards to commemorate the events. We know that blackface and other racial impersonations were forms of entertainment for white people that were part of a larger dehumanizing process that made lynching possible. We know that these impersonations never honored us.

Unfortunately, many white people don’t know these things. They come to college and take a class about who-knows-what to fulfill a multicultural requirement and come away singing “Kumbaya,” decide to have a “Mexican gangster” or “pimps and hos” party at their sorority and don’t know why people of color are so sensitive about it.

The possibility that Shurtz’s act was done with no deliberate racist intent to harm makes it worse in my view. It confirms everything I suspect and fear daily about the ignorance and callous disregard for black humanity among my colleagues and students. It makes me less likely to trust my white colleagues. It makes me dislike them. In that sense, you need to understand that Shurtz has injured you.

At the same time, I am taken aback by the University’s swift suspension of Shurtz. I don’t know if the suspension happened in consultation with her, and I understand that the University has stated this was not a disciplinary action.

Let me be clear. Shurtz is not a young, uninformed undergraduate. She has been a professor almost as long as I’ve been alive. She grew up during the civil rights movement. I find it very hard to accept any protestation of ignorance or statement of good intent from her. Do I find Shurtz’s behavior to be vile? Emphatically. Do I buy her protestations of goodwill? By no means. Do I join my Law School colleagues in calling for her to resign? With gusto. Her resignation would be the best, most productive action she could take, sparing the University, our students and her colleagues further trauma and embarrassment.

However, I fear there is a risk of scapegoating, with the effect that Shurtz is punished for the sins of many and outrage over her behavior evades discussion about what is, unfortunately, a common practice in U.S. society. This is the “bad apple” phenomenon that one sees in discussions of police shootings: You deal with the bad apple and pretend that the barrel isn’t rotten.

First, Shurtz could have had patently racist intent in donning blackface, but her suspension is still troubling. Being a racist outside of work is not cause for dismissal. As someone who teaches, writes on and speaks about controversial subjects, as someone who has been publicly critical of the university administration in the past, as someone who has more than once been called “racist” by white students after teaching them about the history of racism, I find Shurtz’s swift suspension chilling — not because I think she was misunderstood or had good intentions, but because I know how censuring of unpopular actions and words has historically affected women, people of color and queer people disproportionately.

Second, Shurtz’s actions are shocking in a university faculty context but frequently reenacted in Hollywood films, at undergraduate parties, at sporting events, at Halloween parties and in the costume section of Walmart. Indeed, if Shurtz were the only person to dress up in blackface (or redface or yellowface or brownface) in recent memory, the effect would not be as disconcerting. She is a symptom, and we make a grave, possibly fatal error when we treat only the symptom and leave untreated the underlying malady.

Respectfully,

Michael Hames-García

Professor (and founding Department Head) of Ethnic Studies

The post Guest viewpoint: Regarding Nancy Shurtz’s use of blackface appeared first on Emerald Media.

** Editors Note: Each week during football season, we feature a column from the opponent’s student newspaper on why Oregon will lose. This week’s edition is from Eric He of the Daily Trojan at USC. **

A year ago, two ranked teams in USC and Oregon squared off at Autzen Stadium and Ducks’ quarterback Vernon Adams Jr. torched the Trojans in a 48-28 victory for 407 yards and six touchdowns, a record for an opposing quarterback against USC.

It’s safe to say a lot has changed in a year, but I think we’ll see a similar score — except the other way around — at the Coliseum on Saturday.

The Trojans are brimming with confidence on a four-game win-streak and have incentive since every game is essentially a must-win if they want a shot at the Pac-12 South. Last week, USC took advantage of a weak Cal defense, torching the Bears on the ground and in the air. The Trojans put up 398 rushing yards and quarterback Sam Darnold threw for 231 yards and five touchdowns in a 45-24 win — the score was only that close because of two lost fumbles by USC.

Against another struggling defense in Oregon, the Trojans should be able to take advantage yet again. The Ducks are last in the Pac-12 in both scoring defense and total defense, giving up 42.2 points and 529.8 yards per game, so I foresee another big night for the Trojans’ offense. Even with lead running back Justin Davis out against Cal, sophomores Ronald Jones II and Aca’Cedric Ware both had record games. USC also has a dynamic quarterback-wide receiver duo in Darnold and JuJu Smith-Schuster, who should also pad their stats.

This will be a high-scoring affair, but I think USC has the firepower to match Oregon on offense and the Trojans have the much stronger defense. Still, they will have to stop the Ducks’ impressive freshman Justin Herbert, who had a record performance last week against Cal.

This is not the matchup it used to be — it’s the first time in 10 matchups in which neither team is ranked, and the first time USC will play an Oregon team with a losing record since 1982. It’s a testament to how fast things can change in college football and that both programs are hitting the reset button. For now, though, the Trojans have the upper hand.

The post Why USC will beat Oregon appeared first on Emerald Media.

**Editor’s Note: Each week during football season, we feature a column from the opponent’s student newspaper on why Oregon will lose. This week’s edition is from Matthew Tonis of the The State Press at Arizona State University.**

On November 29, 2015, the ASU football team was a blown offside call and questionable overtime touchdown away from likely finishing off a win over Oregon before missing an opportunity in overtime and falling.

Exactly 365 days later, a very different Sun Devil team (5-3, 2-3 Pac-12) will seek revenge in the not-so-friendly confines of Autzen Stadium.

Three quarterbacks, redshirt sophomore Manny Wilkins and redshirt freshmen Brady White and Bryce Perkins, have suffered injuries and left freshman Dillon Sterling-Cole as the likely starting quarterback. Couple that with ailments across the defense and the Sun Devil depth is being put to the test.

After losing three games in a row and facing questions about his character and integrity, there’s no way head coach Todd Graham is going to let his team lose again.

As junior running back Demario Richard so eloquently said after practice Wednesday, Oregon’s defense is “suspect.” The Ducks have given up 5.5 yards per carry on the ground, so Richard and fellow junior running back Kalen Ballage should be prepared for a lot of work come Saturday.

Specifically, ASU will utilize its version of the running back direct snap formation, “Sparky.” Following Manny Wilkins’ departure from the Washington State game, the formation was deployed 20 times for 134 yards with both Richard and Ballage taking snaps. If the Ducks show weakness on the ground early, I expect offensive coordinator Chip Lindsey to keep going to the well until after it runs dry, if it ever does.

Sterling-Cole will probably start at quarterback for ASU, but he will not be asked to carry the offense and likely will be a change of pace, rather than the engine fueling the offense.

Defensively, ASU had its best game of the year a week ago getting pressure. While the Sun Devils gave up nearly 400 yards through the air, they also sacked Luke Falk seven times, generating pressure. Justin Herbert has not been hit that much so far in his young career, and I think the exotic blitz schemes that ASU presents can, and will, rattle the freshman.

The Sun Devils, aside from the Colorado game, have done a great job defending the ground game, admittedly against some less-than-stellar rush offenses. If that success can carry forward, though, ASU could make a dynamic offense one-dimensional. Keeping Herbert on his toes and off-balance is necessary for success for a banged-up, yet opportunistic ASU secondary.

This game is going to be high scoring, but ASU’s defense is just slightly better, meaning the Sun Devils will snap their three-game losing skid and finally reach bowl eligibility.

**Editor’s Note: Each week during football season, we feature an essay from the opponent’s student newspaper on why Oregon will lose. This week’s edition is from Vikram Muller, a sports writer at the Daily Californian.**

The Cal football team (3-3, 1-2 Pac-12) has had its ups and downs this season as each win has been followed by a loss, and both sides of the ball have shown promise and disappointment.

Quarterback Davis Webb is among the nation’s leaders in completions, total yards and passing touchdowns, and Chad Hansen and Demetris Robertson have emerged as consistent threats while an expansive receiver core has also served Webb to his advantage. But then one can look at the Bears’ No. 87 ranked rush offense in yards per game as a reason for Cal’s overreliance on Webb to throw.

On the other side of the ball, the Bears face a similar problem, being strong against the pass but nearly nonexistent against the run. Cal’s run defense ranks second to last in the entire nation, allowing an astonishing average 283.8 yards per game. This, coupled with the fact that Oregon offense has 20 touchdowns on the ground and ranks No. 14 in rushing yards per game with 257.8, makes this game look like a possible runaway for the Ducks. Their focus will undoubtedly be centered around finding holes in the Bears’ front and keeping Webb and the Bear Raid off the field.

Add in the fact that Hansen and Webb are nursing ankle and hand injuries, respectively, and this game spells trouble for the Bears.

But let’s talk about Oregon.

The Ducks’ defense has struggled throughout the year with a switch from a 3-4 to a 4-3 after the hiring of Brady Hoke as defensive coordinator. Their defense ranks No. 117 against the pass and No. 118 against the run with respect to yards per game. Webb should have a field day if healthy. And despite Cal’s struggles with running the ball, Khalfani Muhammad and Tre Watson should gain enough on the ground for play action to have the Bears easily moving the ball downfield and into the endzone despite limited possession.

On the other side of the ball, the Ducks’ offensive line contains four redshirt freshmen, and true freshman Justin Herbert will start as quarterback with one game under his belt — a 70-21 trouncing against Washington. But the nail in Oregon’s coffin won’t be hammered by the Bears, but rather by the Ducks themselves.

After two wins in the first two games, everything was fine. But after two wins in six games, the Ducks have seemingly crumbled from within. First, head coach Mark Helfrich described his team’s loss to Colorado as a “trainwreck” and noted “malaise” as his team’s demise early in that game.

The Ducks then held a players-only meeting to address complacency among younger players, which apparently didn’t work, as a road loss to Washington State and a crushing defeat at home to the Huskies set the team stumbling even further backwards. Helfrich spoke out against his players’ “entitlement” after the loss to the Huskies, and senior offensive lineman Cameron Hunt estimated that 30 to 40 percent of the team doesn’t care about results, per the Register-Guard.

It looks like the coffin might already be sealed. Of course, last week’s bye week might have done wonders, but for now it looks like the Oregon’s season is nearly over.

The Bears should bounce back to another win, and the Ducks’ downward spiral should continue.

This piece reflects the views of the author, Tom Wheeler, and not those of Emerald Media Group. It has been edited by the Emerald for grammar and style. Send your columns or submissions about our content or campus issues to letters@dailyemerald.com.

An open letter to the Board of Trustees:

As Quintard Taylor writes in “The Oregon Encyclopedia”: “Beatrice Morrow Cannady was the most noted civil rights activist in early 20-century Oregon.” Her husband was the co-founder and publisher of “The Advocate,” the first African American newspaper in Portland. As associate editor (and later editor and owner), Beatrice took over daily management, ran the linotype and wrote news and features.

• “The ambassador of interracial goodwill,”
• one of the first black women to graduate from law school in the United States,
• the first African American to run for elected office in Oregon and a pioneering journalist,
• she wrote editorials, gave hundreds of lectures, hosted tea parties specifically intended to cross color lines,
• organized protests against the screening of “The Birth Of A Nation,”
• co-crafted Oregon’s first civil rights legislation,
• spoke to the Legislature at a time when allowing any African American to appear before that body was controversial,
• and cofounded Portland’s NAACP chapter.

For more information, an excellent OPB video documentary can be found here.

Students, faculty, staff and Oregon citizens could all take pride in being associated
with a campus where such contributions and courage are recognized.

Tom Wheeler
Prof.
School of Journalism and Communication