What could be the first move in a multi-faceted effort to improve Ohio University's image is remarkably unimpressive. Shot glasses bearing the OU logo may no longer be produced. Led by Dean of Students Terry Hogan, this effort is designed to end the apparent association between the university and high-risk drinking. This first move, void of any effect, is a pointless one for the Coalition Advocating Responsible Drinking Decisions.
This group of students, faculty and administrators dedicated to reducing the consequences of high-risk drinking has made its influence felt. If the magnitude of this ban is any indication, however, such influence is astonishingly weak. While The Post does not agree with the university's efforts to remove its logo from alcohol-related products, if that is the route the administration wants to go, eliminating shot glasses with the university logo in and of itself is fruitless at best. The fact that beer steins and pilsners with the OU logo are still considered acceptable speaks for itself. If this group wants to achieve its goals, it must make a considerable effort or none at all. This ban seems purely nominal, and high-risk drinkers and teetotalers alike will recognize this immediately. No effort at all would be preferable to one so lacking in force.
The coalition should perhaps dedicate its resources to planning more useful ways to promote safe drinking. If it wishes to make a statement that truly says the university will not tolerate such harmful behavior, it needs to do so with an impact. Meanwhile, the only deterrent they have put in place for high-risk drinkers is that they will not be able to drink shots while staring at an OU logo. More well-developed efforts are needed. This group should make a definite effort or cease altogether before such embarrassingly weak decisions become commonplace.
This new ban is also part of a much larger design for the university administration. Frustrated with the university's renowned party school status, it may hope to make this the first act in a series that, if successful, will gradually lessen or erase this image. Even this larger scale mission, however, is not worth it. The harmful effects of this reputation are exaggerated to such an extent that the administration will only be wasting resources best employed elsewhere. However, if it feels the effort must be taken up, then banning only shot glasses with the OU logo is inadequate.
High limits, low standards
A new campaign finance reform law will do nothing to change the high-cost world of political campaigning. In fact, it might only worsen the financial burden of running for office in the state of Ohio.
Signed by Gov. Bob Taft on Dec. 30, the new law raises campaign contribution limits from $2,500 to a staggering $10,000. The damaging effects this law can have on politics in the state cannot be understated. It inhibits the influence of less wealthy contributors on the political process.
Placing limits on contributions in the first place is intended to ensure equality among private contributors so that electoral victories remain more than a simple race to see who can raise the most cash. While money is inevitably important to effective campaigning, it should not be the deciding factor. A new law like this one only increases the importance of financial status to an unnecessary and harmful extent.
With the contribution limit quadrupled, a candidate who wants to be as visible on the political scene as his opponents will have little choice as to what types of voters to attract. A potential donation of $10,000 per contributor may prove too vital for candidates in Ohio to give much regard to the less affluent. Some supporters of the bill claim to have signed it because it also requires all campaign expenditures and contributions to be accessible to the public. This stipulation is insufficient in making the law redeemable overall, however.
What a more modest contribution limit acknowledged was that there is far more to sound leadership and public service than the amount of money in a candidate's pockets. The legitimacy of Ohio's electoral process is now imperiled by a law that will stratify contributors in a most undemocratic fashion -and the increase makes candidates four times as beholden to the influence of big contributors. Its most destructive manifestation could arrive in the form of the political climate it would nurture -one in which the importance of character in deciding who should be elected to a given office is weakened. If these campaign finance trends continue on their current track, wealth alone will reign supreme.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
