Different priorities
Bret Jacobson’s argument is contradictory. On one hand he says that the University should NOT prioritize values, while at the same time he says University President Dave Frohnmayer should make smoothing Phil Knight’s ruffled (duck?) feathers a priority.
Jacobson simply argues for a different set of values — i.e. that the University should promote corporate ties and big money athletics. This is not a conflict over “paternalism.” It is a conflict over who owns the University and who benefits from its offerings. In my humble opinion, Jacobson is on the wrong side.

Echo Fields

assistant professor of sociology

Ashland, Ore.

Verbose lexicon engenders migraine
I am not writing this letter to respond to the issues in Bret Jacobson’s column (“Paternalistic ideals masquerade as diversity,” ODE, Oct. 23). I’m trying to figure out just what, in fact, the column was about. Even after reading it many times, I have only a vague idea of what thoughts and ideas Jacobson is trying to express. I’m not sure if it was Jacobson’s intention to leave the reader with a pounding migraine, but I’m sure I wasn’t the only one downing Costco-sized tablets of aspirin with a Jack Daniels chaser by paragraph three.
Throughout the article, Jacobson throws in adjectives and modifiers like they were going out of style. I amused myself for hours trying unsuccessfully to find the subject and verb in each sentence. The sentence, “The propriety of a public institution promoting politically driven social engineering must be thoughtfully questioned,” is more like a Dr. Seuss-style nursery rhyme than a complete thought. Clever, but it’s no “fox in socks.” His word choice is even more amazing than his sentence structure. I can only assume the phrase “stimulation of social consciences” came from some out-of-date, new-age sociology text.
Instead of a whole column of thesaurus-assisted rambling, couldn’t Jacobson have just said that he doesn’t think it’s the University’s place to prioritize diversity training over more urgent issues? That would have spared me and countless other readers the trouble of having to trudge through ten paragraphs of overly-verbose garbage masquerading as commentary.

Richard “Pete” R. Hunt

pre-journalism

FDA relinquished its credibility
I am an optimistic person, and I like to believe the Food and Drug Administration is achieving its function of protecting me and the rest of the U.S. consumers.
However, pessimism is rising within me with the FDA’s latest oversight. The recent recalls of Taco Bell-brand taco shells are unsettling. The taco shells, made with genetically engineered corn produced for animal consumption only, were distributed and sold to grocery stores nationwide.
The oblivion of the FDA is unnerving. An environmental watchdog group found the contaminated corn in the taco shells and revealed it to the FDA, which was unaware of the whole matter.
Even more unnerving is the FDA’s report that despite recalling the taco shells, the genetically modified corn infiltrated other processed foods and cannot be tracked down and recalled. This means that you and I are not being protected by the FDA and are quite conceivably eating products that have the potential for harm.
Now I am left to wonder in what other capacities the FDA is failing to protect me as a consumer. With the FDA’s latest oversight, I am troubled when I enter a grocery store. Instead of my mouth salivating from the sights and smells of food, my stomach turns in knots.
The “FDA approved” sticker no longer carries the clout it used to. I am not comforted knowing the FDA approves this product but am left to wonder what “FDA approved” really means for my health.

Rod Yoder

undergraduate

undeclared

Steinem betrayed liberal causes
I was very disappointed by Gloria Steinem on Wednesday night. I attended her speech knowing that she would be stumping for Al Gore, but I didn’t expect her to spend her words betraying her friend Ralph Nader.
She said nothing positive about Al Gore other than he is pro-choice and has promised to appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court. Rather, she chose to betray a man whom she claims to respect and to instill fear in young progressive voters who are dying to vote for the best candidate in this election.
Her tactic: the Supreme Court. Her claim: Between two and four justices will be appointed by the next president. The truth: Only one justice, Ford-appointed John Stevens, has stated he will step down for sure in the next four years (www.supremecourtus.gov/index.html).
Steinem did make a couple of good points, but they were largely overshadowed by her half-truths, spins and omissions. It was all I could do to keep from screaming out loud.
What upset me most, though, was that she failed to mention that Al Gore supports the death penalty, NAFTA and WTO, economic sanctions against Iraq, Cuba and others, the war on drugs, the war in Bosnia, nuclear energy, genetically modified and irradiated foods, corporate welfare and our elitist political system. What are the effects of these policies on women in the United States and abroad, Ms. Steinem?
Please research the facts and don’t be led blindly by fear.

Bradley Porterfield

graduate student

community and regional planning