Frohnmayer leaves Workers’ Rights Consortium hanging
In spite of all the glowing rhetoric about “working together,” “shared governance” and “community voices,” University President Dave Frohnmayer (ODE, March 29) fails to convince me he is willing to make the tough, moral choice — by stipulating that the Workers’ Rights Consortium monitor those factories that produce University apparel.
Ironically, while Frohnmayer insists that the entire University community be involved in coming to a consensus on this issue, he would deny those communities where the garments are made a similar consensus. Since the WRC — composed of women, worker and human rights groups and non-governmental organizations — better represents their communities than the industry-backed Fair Trade Association, isn’t it consistent that he choose the WRC to monitor these factories?
For an issue so straightforward, so crucial to the integrity of the University, so morally compelling, why hasn’t Frohnmayer already agreed the WRC is best suited to insure worker rights are respected? Could it be that his agenda is being dictated by the likes of Nike co-founder Phil Knight and other corporate sponsors of the University, who are making it clear that if Frohnmayer chooses the WRC, it will adversely affect their largesse? And does Frohnmayer think that by delaying his decision until the end of the academic year, he won’t have to account to the students and faculty who have left campus for the summer? If so, he makes a mockery of the very community consensus he claims to champion.
 

Peter Ferris

Eugene Resident
 
 

Sizemore missed invite to debate
I never showed up because I was never invited.
Your March 3 story about the debate regarding Harry Lonsdale’s initiative to reform campaign financing stated that I was a “no show.” The story implied that I made a commitment to show up for a debate and then flaked out.
Truth is, I was never invited. Harry Lonsdale, the author of the measure, thought the students putting on the debate were going to invite me. The students apparently thought Harry was going to invite me. Neither did. Otherwise, I would have been there.
Had I been present at the debate I would have criticized the measure for its gross unfairness. Fact is, there are two major spenders in Oregon politics: corporations and labor unions. Harry’s measure completely stops corporations from contributing money to political campaigns but allows labor unions to spend without limitation. The result would be a one-sided, left-wing debate with voters only hearing one side of the story.
Campaign finance reform must be fair for everyone, not just the political left.
 
 

Bill Sizemore

Head of Oregon Taxpayers United