Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 8, 1950)
Sometimes We Wonder if Things Mean What They Say
Taken by itself the policy statement of the State
Board of Higher Education is reassuring. The
reader, who reads only the statement which ap
peared in these columns Tuesday, learns that the
state board is the foe of costly duplication of ser
vices in the state institutions, that the board is con
cerned only with educating as many young people
as possible within the rather confining budgets
which higher education must accept in this rela
tively impoverished state.
But unfortunately, the careful reader cannot af
ford to take this statement “by itself.” He must
view it in light of the actions of the board.
The statement, released to the major newspa
pers of the state and to the college dailies with a
“please publish” note, proclaims piously that the
board will consider some “necessary duplication”
when it is “on the basis of proven needs” and then
“only after careful study.”
A few moments before this pious declaration
was read, the board had voted to establish major
work in physical education at Oregon State Col
lege. At no time, in no public meeting of that body,
did anybody demonstrate anything about “proven
needs,” nor was there any indication that the new
allocation had come only after careful study.
There was no attempt, so far as the public knows,
to show that the physical education facilities at the
University of Oregon were inadequate to take care
of the needs of the state. There was no indication of
overcrowded conditions in this field, on the Eu
Near the end of the statement the board explains
that “It also is the continuing purpose of the Board
to keep the two major institutions distinctive in
their highly professional fields and to develop qual
ity in these fields.” Viewed in light of the earlier
action of the board (not to mention the action two
years ago which established what amounts to a
duplicate business school at the state college) that
statement is contradictory.
No reasonable person could quarrel with dupli
cations in the two institutions which are necessary
to provide the general “background” necessary to
all educated persons.
The board tosses in more double-talk about the
costs of educating “a student.” It costs no more to
educate a student at one institution than it does at
another. Therefore, the reasoning seems to be, the
state can educate two students at two different
places as cheaply as it can educate two students at
one place. In other words two persons can live sep
arately as cheaply as two can live together.
Well, how about it? “Assuming there are suffi
cient numbers of students to guarantee adequate
size of classes and effective utilization of facilities
and faculties, can we please nave an engineering
school here? How about agriculture? There are
many farms in Lane County, and our Lane Coun
ty boys need to know the science of soils and ferti
lizers and baby chicks.
Where the argument bogs down, of course, is in
the very significant difference in the two institu
tions. The University administration has for five
years been stressing quality education, seeking to
strengthen the schools and departments which al
ready exist. The administration here will not at
tempt to do things it cannot do well. It would
rather spend the time and the money in fields
where the demand is not met elsewhere.
Quite the opposite is the situation down the river.
Empire Builders at Oregon State College seem to
feel that they want as many areas as possible as
signed to them. Whether there is money for the
duplications, is of small importance.
This page has no beef with the appropriation of
money for Oregon State College—in the proper
areas. But lets not see the state’s money dissipated
by duplicating professional work in the areas al
ready served adequately by another institution.
(This guest editorial, submitted by a student of
the University, so completely expresses the feel
ings of the editorial staff we think no other com
ment is necessary.—The Editor.)
How to Perpetuate?
The Student Union Board is having difficulties.
This is only natural, since the SU board has so many prob
lems that lead to difficulties.
But the difficulty we are at present most interested in con
cerns perpetuation of the board.
It seems the SU board must be representative of the stu
This, almost everyone will agree, is a good idea—students
on the student union board representing students.
But how to select those students? Here we run into difficul
By geneMt election? This might lead to politics, and the
function o^Rie board is non-political.
By appointment by Deans of Schools, President of the Uni
versity, or some other person? This would tend to leave stu
dent voice out in the rain.
Have the board choose its own successors? This would al
low a stinker on the board to choose someone even worse; and
lead to other evils of self-perpetuation.
Selection of members by a joint committee of Student Union
Board members and Executive Council members? This sounds
like a reasonable plan.
It avoids the politics of a general election; it places the re
sponsibility in the hands of student leaders who are represen
tatives of the students; it places the Student Union Board and
the Executive Council in proper relationship to one another.
There are details to be worked out:
How many students? What groups shall they represent?
Upperclassmen or lowerclassmen or both? Qualifications?
Methods of getting names before the joint committee? And
more, and more, and more.
But the details are important. For the Student Union Board
must be a board that does represent the students; a board
which the students have had their say in appointing.
The Student Union is an important phase of student govern
ment ; it must work within the realm of student government.
It is the task of this first board to set the proper relationship
between student government and student union.
A joint committee would be a proper first move.
The OREGON DAU.Y EMERALD, published daily during the college year except
Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and final examination periods by the Associated Students,
University of Oregon. Subscription rates: $2.00 a term, $4.00 for two terms and $5.00 a
year. Entered as second class matter at the postoffice Eugene, Oregon.
Opinions expressed in editorials are those of the writer, and do not claim to represent the
opinions of the ASUO or of the University. Initialed editorials are written by associate editors.
Unsigned editorials are written by the editor. .
Opinions expressed in an editorial page by-lined column are those of the columnist, and
do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editor or his associates.
Oon A. Smith, Editor Joan Mimnaugh. Business Manager
Barbara Heywood, Helen Sherman, Associate Editors.
Gi.enn Gillespie, Managing Editor
I)oN Thompson, Advertising Manager
News Editors: Anne Goodman, Ken Metxler. Sports Editors: John Barton, Sam Fidman.
Assistant News Editor: Mary Ann Dclsman. Chief Night Editor- l.oma l«a r sou.
Assistant Managing Editors: Hal Coleman, Copy Editor: Marjory Bush.
Tom King, Bill Stanfield, Stan Turnbull. Desk Editors: Marjory Bush, Beb Funk,
Emerald Photographer: Gene Rose. Gtetchen Grondahl, Lorna Larson,. Larry
Women’s Editor: June Fitzgibbons. Mciser.
IdJUa'l in Change cMeAe?
How to Keep
By Rod Smith
' You get a “B” in your midterm and a “B”
in your final and your grade for the term
comes out a "C”. You go to see your profes
sor to find out “wha hoppen” and are told in
pear shaped (how now etc.) tones that, be
cause you missed two classes and were late
for another one, your actual grade was drop
ped a notch down the scale. You plead, beg,
grovel, weep, gnash teeth, and prostrate
your “worthy” instructor but to no avail. You
are informed that he will not tolerate stu
dents who miss class; that you couldn't pos
sibly have gotten enough information out of
the course to get an honest “B” unless you
had attended all the lectures; and that why
should he do you favors when y-ou aren’t in
terested enough in the course to come to class.
To him the matter is closed.'
I wonder if the professors who cause the
above scene to be reenacted many times each
term realize that they are the cause for. the
student's absence from class. A person at
tends college to secure as much higher edu
cation as possible; both academic and social,
lie has completed his schooling as required
by law. He attends college to enable himself
A / i A C l
to get a better job than someone who has no
degree or to qualify himself for a high paying
job that requires technical knowledge which
only college can give him. He has no time to
waste ! He must use every minute profitably!
He can’t squander valuable time going to
class where the professor drones on and on
about nothing with a “don’t ask questions but
take my word for it” attitude. The student
goes to class to learn, not to be put to sleep.
Professors take note ! If your classroom al
ways seems to be almost empty, don’t be
hasty and unjustly penalize the missing st%_
dents. Maybe you are a “drone.” Maybe your
lectures sprinkle sand around the room and
cause droopy eyelids. Maybe more punch in
your lectures would draw a larger bunch of
students to your classes. The prudent stu
dent is going to get all that he can out of col
lege. If your lectures ofifer him nothing but
sedentary “sack-time” can you blame him for
spending his time someplace else? He’s prob
ably doing some outside reading for your
course and, if not, even a cup of muddy “joe”
will do more for him that your lecture. It will
at least keep his “peepers” open.
9n the, Ra<f
Unhappy About Sports Coverage
"So the Sammies were really hot—nothing
less—as they solidly whacked Alpha 39-13.”
It isn't enough that the Sammies should heat
Alpha, but the paper proudly announces such
a top-heavy score. It is amazing but true that
Alpha piled up 20 points to 39 for those maple
mighties, the Sammies. Let us also point out
that Alpha's John Shepherd scored 12 points
to keep pace with those immortal Sammies,
Harold Mink with 14 points and Gerald Ginz
berg with 10 points.
The Emerald is sorry it made an inaccur
acy in reporting the score of the game. The
score was obtained from the scorebook, and
the error was there. John Shepherd did score
12 points, as you mentioned.
Ariy partiality that appeared in the story
was unintentional; the writer was attempt
ing to report objectively. He may have let his
enthusiasm carry him away.
The Emerald sports staff attempts always
to report events objectively. If they do have a
personal interest in the outcome (and tljpy
usually do not) they subjugate their personal
interests when writing the story.—Editor.