Disgusted with Knight
As a University alumnus, I have benefited from Nike CEO Phil Knight’s generous contributions. But I am appalled at the manner in which he has withdrawn his support from the University. With this move, Knight has revealed his true colors. He appears to expect that in exchange for money, the University will buy into Nike’s corporate agenda and consult him about its decisions. I am not particularly surprised that this is the case, but I am surprised that students and community members don’t seem to be as disgusted with his arrogance as I am.
The Worker Rights Consortium that the University recently joined is not an industry favorite. But it is a responsible and credible vehicle by which the University can be assured that products it sells are not manufactured by workers who are abused. Three-quarters of the voting student body opted for University membership in the WRC. The University Senate and a student committee appointed to examine sweatshop issues also voted to join. Many other major institutions across the country are already members.
I am pleased, actually rather proud, that students of my alma mater are taking it upon themselves to confront these important issues. If Knight doesn’t like it then he is welcome to buy off some other university (the Washington State University football team needs some help). The University needs critical thinkers more than it needs Knight’s money.
 

James Johnston

University alumnus

Decisions not easy
Just wanted to say that the editorial you wrote in the April 26 Emerald about the Nike dilemma was well written. I agree with your published opinion wholeheartedly. I have to give University President Dave Frohnmayer a lot of credit for respecting the students’ concerns and directing his final decision with that in mind. He has a lot of guts. I would also like to tip my hat to Nike CEO Phil Knight. I respect his decision and would like to thank him for what he has done for the University. We now have a first-class law school as well as a top-notch library among other resources. I hope he is still proud to be a Duck.

Jim Hibbert

Class of 1998

Frohnmayer responsible
There is more than enough blame to go around for the Worker Rights Consortium fiasco, and yes, not all of the blame should be directed at the students. However, by your own reporting, only about 2,000 students took enough interest in the subject to press the issue. Where were the remaining 15,000 students who could have stopped the movement in its tracks by voicing their opposition? Now that the University is going to pay a heavy price for this inappropriate and highly questionable course of action, everyone is pointing fingers at someone else to take the blame. Yes, 2,000 students were too emotional and the administration was derelict in its duty to look out for what was best for the University.
Ultimately, the final responsibility rests with the University president, and this sad and pathetic lack of common sense is going to cost the University and thousands of future students and faculty the benefit of increased funding for educational facilities and programs, all in the name of some social-political agenda that has no place in the official policy of the University.
Perhaps the best advise would be to adhere to my mother’s old adage, “Engage brain before opening mouth!”

Daniel Frank

class of 1957
 

Are donations appropriate?
In the recent uproar about Nike CEO Phil Knight’s donations or lack thereof, I have yet to see someone engage the fundamental question increasingly at issue, given the growing role of such private largesse: To what extent should and do such gifts decide the priorities of a university? Is it even appropriate for an individual to specify that millions should go to the biology department or the business school if needs elsewhere are greater? Until that’s decided, why consider subsidiary questions, among which is whether collegiate sports, which has no such role in other countries, should be a major player. Is this merely a question of beggars not being choosers?

Peter W. Frank

Eugene resident

Napster not so bad
Regarding the article on Napster (ODE, April 25), Simone Ripke seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Napster. It is not possible to “download songs from the Napster Internet site,” because Napster does not provide any content whatsoever, but is a program that allows users to exchange files.
The fact is that it is not inherently illegal to trade MP3-formatted songs over the Web. In fact, if you already own the album that you are downloading, it is perfectly legal. This raises the obvious question of how to prosecute those using Napster.
Perhaps send federal agents to dig through the CD collections of every one of the millions of Napster users? While it may be possible to make an example of a few people, this is never going to stop widespread usage.
The current suit filed against Napster by Metallica and the RIAA is very similar to a suit filed against electronics companies by the movie industry during the advent of the VCR. Hollywood was convinced that the VCR would mean the end of huge movie profits because people would buy pirated tapes and not go to the movies anymore. It was ruled that the producers of the technology could not be held liable for its potential use in the theft of copyrighted material. Nowadays a huge portion of the profits of any film come from the video sales and rental market.
One thing is for sure: If a new technology works and is widespread, someone at the record labels will figure out how to profit from it.

Merlin Camozzi

history
 

MP3 will survive regardless
Among the musicians filing lawsuits against Napster is Dr. Dre. While Dre seems to have no problem swiping the THX theme song for his most recent album, he certainly has qualms with those who pilfer his own songs. Napster will not prevent Dre from buying another Lexus or successfully toppling the music industry. Opponents of the program tend to ignore the fact that prerecorded music sales have actually increased since its release. Who uses Napster? A relatively small handful of unscrupulous college kids who don’t even have the $18 to purchase a legit copy of “Chronic 2001.” Who stands to lose a few dollars because of Napster’s existence? Wealthy, multi-platnium-selling hypocrites such as Dre and Metallica. Finding albums by more obscure acts such as Kid Koala or Gay Dad on Napster is about as easy as coming across a Nike advocate at a circus protest. MP3 swapping will continue to thrive with or without Napster. Launching a full-scale attack against Internet piracy is akin to naively assuming that a letter to the Emerald might actually have an impact on public opinion. If Dre, Metallica and all the rest manage to shut down Napster, another program will only replace it and the one after that and the one after that.
 

Brandon Hartley

English

WRC better than nothing
The University has lost more than $30 million dollars. The University has lost the support of a leading alumn.
For some of you, this matters little. You might dislike Nike and other international businesses. You might not like lawyers or athletes. Whatever the reason, I congratulate you on your pol
itical win.
For others who do care, I
sadly say you gave up the right to complain when you chose not to vote against joining the Worker Rights Consortium. Political apathy has political consequences.
As for the evil companies overseas …
“Foreign contractors of footwear makers under scrutiny already pay 25 to 40 percent above the standard minimum wage of the Indonesian government; therefore, increased pay may not be a direct result of this report.” (The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 18, 1999, p. A3)
Now I’m not going to say that Nike, or any other company, should be sainted for the way things were. Factory jobs will be less desirable no matter what country you visit. At the same time, Nike and some of its competitors have responded to improve factory conditions.
Perhaps in some ways it would be nice to be a bit politically incorrect and acknowledge that progress is being made. For some of you, recognition of partial progress is wasteful if it’s anything short of a globally united economic revolution.
 

Nelson Kidd

University alumnus

Monkey business
In regards to Bret Jacobson’s query (ODE, April 24) as to the behavioral pattern of monkeys currently residing in America: According to a recent National Geographic study, a great many of them have apparently taken to wearing glasses and writing commentary for campus newspapers.

William Moglia

German