Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (March 29, 1963)
An Important Consideration A Raise in Non-Resident Admissions Standards Should Not Reduce Enrollment Too Much With its recent action to raise admission standards at Oregon Universities £or out-of state students, the State Board of Higher Education has taken another step to lower the number of non-resident students at the Universities. Earlier, the Board raised the tuition rates for students from other states. In a few years these two policies will have a considerable effect on the University of Oregon. Whether the changes will be for good or bad will largely depend on the care which the board takes to loosen re strictions if too few non-resident students are applying to come to state schools. The value of competent students from other states is obvious. They have different opinions and help, to an extent, to decrease the provincialism which is always a danger in a school which attracts most of its stu dents from one area. But the contribution of any student to the University is less if he is less capable. The board’s action is intended to encourage attendance by highly-qualified non-resident students by setting up a system of fee re mission scholarships. At the same time at tendance by poorly qualified students from other states is being discouraged. It is possible that the board’s action will mean that the University will, in the future, have fewer but better out-of-state students. But it is also possible that the University will not have enough out-of-state students and will suffer from the loss of their experi ence. It is the latter possibility especially which the board must keep in mind as it evaluates the success of the policy, and possibly modifies it. With the increase in the number of Ore gon high school graduates desiring to come to college combined with the limited finances and facilities available to the Uni versity, it is reasonable that these gradu ates be given some preference over out-of state students with equal qualifications. There should always be a place, however, for those students from other states who will be an asset to the University rather than just an expense. We hope that the board will make sure that its action does not deny them this place. Stadium Discussion We have never criticized University President Arthur S. Flemming's adminis trative procedures. He makes an effort to allow all sides to be heard and to make their weight felt. He never tries to ' slip something by”. He is conscious of his re sponsibility to keep the public as well as students and faculty informed about deci sions to be made and the processes involved in making decisions. More than this, we are especially appreciative, as students, that he always makes a special effort to take the opinions of students into consideration. All of this he has done or has promised to do concerning the proposed new football stadium at the University. The widespread controversy about a foot ball stadium that took place last Spring, leading to a hotly contested student body vote on the use of student fees for a stadi um, died down when he said he was going to make a study of the various possibilities for multiple-use and for the site of the sta dium. He said that at the time he received this study, to be done by an architectural f rm, he would bring the questions and alterna tives involved in a new stadium before the proper bodies for discussion. These would include the alumni and faculty committees on athletics and the ASUO Cabinet or Sen ate. He said all of this last Spring. Now it is Spring term again. President Flemming in dicated during last Winter term that he had received an initial report by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, the architects from Portland doing the study. We are well aware, as is President Flem ming. that a discussion of a new and expen sive football stadium for the University during the time the State Legislature is considering the budget for higher educa tion would leave us open for criticism by legislators looking for a spot to criticize. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the only honest and sound grounds upon which the University can discuss the financial obliga tions involved in a new football stadium, including the possible use of student ath letics and building fees, is in just this sort of semi-competition with a discussion of the financial needs of our academic community. We believe that by hesitating any longer and failing to discuss the alternatives for a new stadium until the legislature is out of session, President Flemming would be leav ing his administrative procedures vulner able to criticism, a position he has thus far managed justifiably to avoid. Letters to the Editor ! Patriotism Emerald Editor: As a loyal, patriotic American I favor the abolishment of HCUA, occasionally called “HUAC”. (The reason for this misnomer is apparent — it is easier to pronounce.) I believe this committee effectively de nies rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Furthermore, I was quite disheartened upon reading Mr. Pearson’s recent let ter, for I would expect less emotion and more reason from a fellow graduate student. The use of such phrases as “duped,” “misguided ones,” and even “lu natic fringe of the left wing,” as well as the McCarthy-like ref erence to “certain persons”, in refering to this matter is unfor tunate. He calls the effort to let students speak out on HCUA an “ill-conceived venture” and “ob jectionable.” Why? He calls the use of the first amendment by persons “ironic.” Why? He claims that “International Com munism . . . would profit most by the abolishment of the HCUA,” without attempting to support this statement. Why? He calls the stand taken by per sons in opposition to HCUA “fallacious reasoning” and a lack of “common sense.” Why? Perhaps the answer to all these “whys” is that Mr. Pearson wish es to waive logic and reason in order to shout down his opposi tion. I believe statements such as those in the letter referred to above are totalitarian in nature, that they indicate a “Big Broth er is watching you” attitude. It is inconceivable to me how one can support such an attitude by use of our Constitution. Reasons have been given for the abolishment of HCUA; if there exist sound, logical reas ons for its continuation, let them be heard. But, please, let us be rid of this pseudo-patriotic noise. Larry L. English Graduate, Mathematics 0US- <3vaME: Property Tax Hurts The following editorial is reprinted from the Sunday, March 24 Portland Daily Oregonian. Although it really does not propose an adequate solution, the Oregon State Legislature should listen to its plea for a much needed tax reform in this state. In suggesting major tax reform, the Oregonian has put its finger on the only step which we be lieve the legislature could take to allow higher education in Oregon to continue to progress at its present rate. Oregon’s strong reliance on the real and personal property tax got the state into trouble in the big depression of the 1930s and there are signs that it may again, not because we are in depression but mainly because of our school age population explosion A report by the Bureau of Municipal Research at the University of Oregon, supplemented by a letter from Downtown Portland, Inc., shows what is happening Property tax levies in Oregon increased from $8fl,981.250 in 1949-50 to $230,301,252 in 1962-63 The people of Oregon now are paying about twice as much in property taxes for schools and local governments and services as they are paying to the state in income taxes (a large share of the latter, also, being returned to the schools). Yet Oregon's income tax. since we have rejected a sales tax in the past, is among the higher in the nation “Since 1954, the percentage increase in local debt and taxes have far out stripped the federal debt,” comments S. Eugene Allen, executive secretary of Downtown Portland, Inc "State debt and taxes have also grown percentagewise far faster than federal tig ures. The reasons are clear The great pressure that is placed on cities and states and agencies of local government to provide ser vices of new and important character for the BO per cent of the population that will soon live in urban areas has brought this about. Counties are obliged to provide many of the services that hitherto have been performed by cities This arises as the "urban sprawl’ pushes beyond the city boundaries, but the problems don’t stop at the city limits.” Greatest percentage increases, are in taxes for schools and special districts But it is school costs which take $148,002,435 of the $230, 361.252 raised by property taxes this fiscal year. While there is concern in the Legislature about the greatly in creased burden on property owners, from a tax which in many cases has little relation to earnings or ability to pay. no substantial relief is likely from this session. The Assembly is too hard pressed to improve the state’s fiscal condition to take on the additional burden of relieving local property. But the Legislature does have the obligation and should have the foresight to reconstruct the state revenue program in such a way that it will be flexible enough to take care of the future. A patch work of one-shot measures, which merely postpone the day of reckoning for two years, will not do. Within two years, Oregon is most likely to be caught in an intolerable tax situation with respect to homes and business properties. The day of major tax reform cannot be put off forever. HU AC Opposition Listed Emerald Editor: We consider that Mr. Harry 0. Pearson’s Letter of March 27 warrants a reply, not because he has presented closely rea soned arguments, but because of his use of smear tactics. Mr. Pearson has impugned the in tegrity of the ASUO President’s Civil Rights Committee by sug gesting that the Committee “will attempt to create the impression that the student body of the University of Oregon is in favor of the abolishment of the ‘HUAC’.” In fact, the Civil Rights Committee is not trying to create any impression but rather, it is trying to give the student body an opportunity to express its jviewpont on an im portant issue. Specifically the Committee did not issue a peti tion calling for the abolition of HUAC; the petition simply was to place a resolution on the spring term ballot which would allow students to voice their ap proval or disapproval of Hl/AC’s existence. Mr. Pearson has unjustifiably associated the Civil Rights Com mittee with the "lunatic fringe (Continued on ptiye 3) OR KG ON DAILY EMERALD The Oregon Daily Emerald i* published seven times in September ami five days a week during the school year, except dur ing examination and vacation period* by the Student Publications Board of the University of Oregon. Entered as second das* mater at the post office, Eugene, Oregon. Subscription rates: $5 per year; $2 per term. Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of The Emerald and do not pre tend to represent the opinions of the ASUO or the University. RON BUEL, Editor MARTY KETELS, Business Manager TED MAILVK, Managing Editor EVERETTK DENNIS, News Editor PHIL COGSWELL. Editorial Page Editor LARRY WILLIAMS, Advertising Manager JOHN BUCHNER, Sports Editor DULCY MORAN, Assistant Managing Editor
