TO THE EDITOR:

Dan Cook's editorial in the April 28 edition of the Business Journal was not only sophomoric in analysis but also thin in content relating to solid research on the reasons behind why Phil Knight cut off the University of Oregon from future donations. Cook's reasoning suggests that Phil was irritated that he was not consulted at the decision to join the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC). Perhaps he was, but there is a deeper issue that has been ignored in the framework of this debate. The question of pulling a donation is merely a sidebar to the greater story.

Should a publicly-funded institution enter a political debate on business practices in which it has no business? As taxpayers we reject the notion that schools within the Oregon University System have the authority to act in a non-partisan manner. As alumni advocates who have lobbied for higher education in previous legislative sessions, we believe UO President Dave Frohnmayer and Vice-President for Public Affairs Duncan McDonald have disgraced the University's good name to satisfy the cries of not more than 50 extremist students.

Knight had every right to pull his donation and should not be criticized for a measured and logical response to this issue. The Nike-backed Fair Labor Association has much more credibility than the WRC, from monitoring practices to sound guidelines which realize that living wages in different economies are different and to compare different working and living conditions is likened to a comparison of apples to oranges. In addition, the WRC is supported by the AFL-CIO which certainly is no friend of the emerging and forward-thinking global economy and wants to bring apparel jobs back to the United States.

The University's discourteous, obnoxious, and thoughtless behavior led to obvious consequences. We congratulate Phil Knight for standing up to a process which had many holes in its execution and are hard pressed in the future to support the University's programs and lobbying efforts for additional monies at the state legislature in the future.

Dan Cook definitely missed the boat on the crux of this issue and chose instead to focus on the byproduct of the real issue, a donation. If his research were thorough, he would have uncovered that the majority of Knight's philanthropic gifts have been to academics and not athletics (the Knight Library; $15 million for endowed professorships; $10 million for the new law school). We hope that the Business Journal will be more complete in its analysis of these issues in the future and not concentrate on knee-jerk conclusions.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Horswell 503.256.5844 PH 503.256.0176 FX 3018