Scapegoats
Out-of-state Students Are the Victims
Of a Conservative, Tight-fisted Legislature
In handing down their tentative decisions
to increase resident and non-resident tui
tions, legislators have made it clear that
they will make students the scapegoat for
Oregon’s financial ills.
We recognize that the tentative tuition
decision is not final and that the State Board
of Higher Education, not the state legisla
ture, sets the actual tuition rates. The legis
lature, however, establishes intent and
bases the higher education budget on that
intent. The board has also indicated that it
will raise tuition rather than cut academic
programs and lower the quality of educa
tion offered at Oregon schools.
For the first time since World War II. the
legislative session opened without a budget
surplus. It was apparent that even to meet
the proposals of Gov. Mark O. Hatfield's
budget it would be necessary for the state
to raise an additional $50 million in revenue.
The governor proposed several solutions to
the problem including a net receipt tax and
increased tuition.
In making their tentative decision, the
education sub-committee of the Ways and
Means committee indicate that they do not
expect a radical tax reform this year.
Changes in Oregon’s antiquated tax struc
ture might not be politically expedient at
this time. The tuition increase fits well into
the legislators’ scheme: soak all college
students, but hit the out-of-staters a little
harder, after all they can’t vote in Oregon
and have no chance to repudiate the legis
lators responsible.
The sub committee decision seems pre
mature, but perhaps it is only a realistic
appraisal of new revenue means which will
come out of the session. The taxation pack
age has not yet been prepared. The House is
still haggling over the cigarette tax and
other proposals are still in the committee.
Sen. Alfred Corbett seemed to have a
realistic proposal on non-resident tuition
when he suggested it be raised over the
next two or three years, thus giving a little
more consideration to those students from
out-of-state now attending the University.
We would hope that the sub committee will
re-consider this proposal.
The only encouraging thing about the
sub-committee action is the provision to set
aside 10 per cent of the out-of-state tui
tion money for scholarship rebates for the
non-residents.
It would be regrettable if the $900 tui
tion became effective next fall. The psycho
logical shock alone would be likely to slash
the number of out-of-state students consid
erably. For it is impossible to assess the
value of these out-of-state students in a cold,
statistical approach.
The cultural exchange that takes place
on the campus with increased numbers of
out-of-state students gives the campus a
more cosmopolitan atmosphere and steers
us away from static provincialism.
Unfortunately it is too late in the year
for Greater Oregon or the University it
self to publicize the 10 per cent rebate plan.
The psychological effect of hiking the out
of-state tuition up to an absurd level in com
parison to other schools on the coast will do
great damage to all undergraduate pro
grams.
We hope the legislators will reconsider
their action, for if they approve the in
crease they leave little alternative for the
State Board of Higher Education, or out
of-state students.
Frayed Nerves and Tight Budgets
The following editorial is reprinted from
the April 15 edition of the Eugene Register
Guard. We reprint it because we agree with
the viewpoint it takes.
It must be the middle of April. Nerves are
getting frayed up in Salem. Because they are wor
ried and weary, people say things they shouldn’t
say.
That’s what happened in a Ways and Means sub
committee meeting Friday, after the State Board
of Higher Education submitted a written answer
to an informal question. Earlier in the session,
Sen. W’ard Cook of the committee asked Chan
cellor Roy Lieuallen, quite informally and out
in the hall, what would happen if the committee
chopped another $5 million off the budget the
board wants. That’s not the kind of question a
man can answer off the top of his head.
The chancellor consulted the nine-member
board about it. The board worked up the state
ment which the subcommittee saw on Friday,
The statement was mild itself. Its main point
was that if $5 million had to be cut, the board
would favor tightening up admissions—both by
increasing tuition again and by raising require
ments. Quality over quantity, said the board. And
in addition, the statement said, there would have
to be cutbacks in some of the auxiliary services
higher education now offers the state. Among
these services are such politically and emotionally
attractive activities as agricultural research, fed
eral extension services, the teaching hospital, and
the crippled children’s division.
Senator Cook, who had asked the question in
the first place, said he was “frankly shocked,”
adding, “I felt half sick to think the board would
cut these things. The board is acting like a spoil
ed child; it wants to take its marbles and go
home.” Rep. Stafford Hansell was also shocked.”
Likewise Rep. Ross Morgan, one of the co-chair
men of Ways and Means. Fortunately cooler
heads, notably Sen. Alf Corbett, smoothed things
over, assuring all hands that nobody was mad at
anybody, really.
It’s hard to believe that it has been only a
little more than two weeks since the speaker
of the House was critical because, he said, the
board hadn’t answered a question that had been
asked of it. Would the Ways and Means subcom
mittee have preferred that Senator Cook’s ques
tion had not been answered? Or would it have
preferred to write its own answer without con
sulting the board? It seems, really, that the
board did exactly as it was asked to do. There
is no good reason for the irritation.
Again, chalk it up to frayed nerves at this criti
cal point in the legislative session.
Another paragraph of the board’s report de
serves comment. “The board is aware,” the state
ment said, “that it is difficult to achieve and
maintain a reputation for excellence in the aca
demic world; the process of deterioration, how
ever, is easy and swift.”
Members of the Ways and Means committee
are getting on toward middle age, and there is
certainly nothing wrong with that. They might
understand, then, that an educational establish
ment may be compared with a middle-aged man
who wants to play tennis or climb mountains. He
finds it takes him a long time to get into physi
cal shape. But he doesn’t have to stop exercis
ing long before he finds himself back where he
started. So with a campus. We saw that in Ore
gon from 1956 to 1959, when salary schedules
were so low. Good people left in droves. It’s
been a hard four-year struggle to replace the
people who left so quickly. The plant could start
falling apart again, a circumstance we must not
permit.
/ /
r\\jmr r t
1 . «Pm1 /WWlCVk3
r,-o
harbinger
Can’t Eat It,
Have It Too
The following editorial is reprinted from the April Id
edition of the Portland Daily Oregonian. We reprint it be
cause we agree with it.
The .surprising element in the current relationship between the
legislative Ways and Means Committee and the State Board of
Higher Education is that members of the committee should be
surprised at the unanimous proposal of the tioard to trim aux
iliary services if the Legislature should cleave a substantial
amount from the board's budget requests.
The Ways and Means subcommittee assigned to higher educa
tion has, for weeks, been conscientiously studying the board budg
et. Its questions have clearly raised the prospect of a recommen
dation of a reduction of as much as $S million in the $81 8 million
higher education appropriation recommended by Gov. Hatfield,
which is, in itself, far below the $96 million requested by the
board It is beyond question that such a big slice from an already
pared budget would vitally affect the board's program
The Ways and Means Committee members* "Oouchf** at the
board’s projected cuts reveals that political nerves can be more
sensitive to threats to the higher education system's auxiliary
services than to threats to its prime responsibilities in the class
rooms and lalioratories.
The State System of Higher Education's program can be broken
down into at least three categories: Teaching, research, and sen
ice. The board, quite poorly, has proposed that, if its program is
to be drastically cut for lack of funds, it should be cut primarily
in the realm of services, such as provided by hospitals and agri
cultural extension services; and that its education program should
be reduced in quantity rather than quality; that is, fewer stu
dents should be served through raising admission standards The
Ways and Means subcommittee, on the other hand, has toyed with
the possibility of jeopardizing quality through reducing number of
teachers employed and through an across the board reduction equiv
alent to an expected unexpended balance of $2 million or so
Reflection should reveal the comparative merit of the board’s
plan. And there can be no question that the board has the author
ity to apply its budget as it sees fit. The Board of Higher Edu
caiton, not the Ways and Means Committee, has both the power
and the responsibility to make operational decisions governing its
program. A 1929 Supreme Court decision, in the year of the
board’s creation, confirmed that the assignment of such discretion
to the board was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative
authority.
Ways and Means has regularly sought to undermine the board’s
authority and tie strings to its appropriations, but it is not on
sound ground in doing so. Of course, the committee could act vindic
tively in the present situation, if it should choose to do so. But that
is not to be expected. The committee would do well to take at face
value the projection of the board, signed as it is by all nine mem
bers. Although it has been a "shock” to some members of the com
mittee, it would be even more shocking to make such drastic cuts
in the basic areas of teaching and research.
It is high time for some candid education budget talk at Sa
lem. The Legislature cannot nibble away at its "quality education”
cake and have it, too.
OREGON DAIi.Y KM KR AM)
i iic uicijira iiany r.mtraia is published
seven lines m September and five days a
week du ing the school year, except dur
iiiK examination and vacation pet ods by
the Student Publications Hoard of the
University of Oregon. Entered as second
class 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 nor pre
tend .o represent the opinions of the
ASUO or the University.
RON BUEI„ Editor
MARTI' KE1 EES, Busincs; Manager
I ED MAIIAR, Managing Editor
E. ERI,I 1 E DENNIS, News Editor
PHIL COGSWELL,
Ivlttoria! Par** Editor
LARKY WILLIAMS,
Advertising Manager
JOHN IUJCHNEK, Sports Editor
UULCY MOKAN,
As»i>tant Managing Editor
RON COWAN, IIM FKAKE,
JANET GOETZE,
Assistant News Editors
GEORGE HIGH AM, Photo Fditoi
LINDA BROWN, Entertainment Editor
CATHY NEVILLE,
Associate News Editor
DICK RICHARDSON,
Feature Editor