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