No Major Alterations
Higher Education Subcommittee Exhibits Intelligence
In Reconsidering Building Priorities Decision
The Oregon State Legislature was at it
again last week. Unlike the righteous in
dignation over student pressure exhibited
after the Emerald’s April Fool’s Day edi
tion, the latest activities of the Joint Ways
and Means Educational Sub-Committee are
not the cause for a “laugh is on you”
chuckle.
Basically, the problem is this: only $10
million of the $47 million State Board of
Higher Education building program for
1963-65 can be obtained by financing
through the state general fund. What is to
be done about the rest? Must the 30.000
students at state system institutions suffer
because of a lack of facilities? Or must
they submit to a hodge-podge of schemes to
limit enrollment, increase tuition, and di
minish available funds for operational ex
penses? Clearly the Sub-Committee on Edu
cation is groping for solutions, but so far
it has been unsuccessful.
Tentative action by the Sub-Committee,
which would have altered the State Board
of Education’s capital construction priority
list, was reconsidered. This was indeed
encouraging—the Sub-Committee gracious
ly decided not to substitute its judgment
for that of the state board in an area which
clearly falls into the defined, legitimate
role of the board.
After meeting with the board Monday,
the Sub-Committee decided not to make
major changes in the priority list. Changes
in the priority list could have resulted in
inter-institutional competition and a break
down in cooperation within the state sys
tem. In the long run, higher education
would suffer because needs would be de
cided on a political and regional basis
rather than on long range educational ob
jectives.
They did, however, add three projects:
land purchases, campus development at
Oregon Technical Institute and building
renovation at Oregon College of Education.
This rejuggled the priorities and pushed
two University of Oregon projects, includ
ing the library and science addition, down
on the priority list. Previously listed as
seventh and ninth on the board’s priority
list, the two Oregon projects are now tenth
and twelfth. This is. however, an improve
ment over the Sub-Committee’s action last
week which would have changed the library
to fourteenth and moved up the science
building. This would have conceded the
library project.
It is encouraging to see that the Sub
committee has reconsidered its tentative
plans. This would have brought back the
days of fierce competition when the presi
dents of the University and Oregon State
went to Salem to lobby for their individual
programs.
Although the Sub Committee has recon
sidered the priority problem, we find dis
turbing its latest proposal to issue self
liquidating bonds for financing the build
ing program. This proposal, tagged as the
Corbett-Mosser plan, seems to be another
stop-gap measure that fails to meet the
long run need—the need for a broader
revenue base for higher education The
bonds would be self-liquidating—in fact,
they would be student-tuition liquidated.
This can mean one of two things—less
money to meet rising operational costs and
therefore, a decrease in educational quality,
or another round of tuition increases.
The future of higher education is grave.
We are hopeful that this legislature will
attempt to work out some long-range solu
tions to set guidelines for future growth.
We believe that a legislature which has
time for cat control bills and other hair
brained schemes should also have time to
find means for a broader revenue base for
higher education.
University Atmosphere is Changing
Student Endeavors on Up-Grade
The University of Oregon is a univer
sity with a changing face and a changing
personality. The institution is growing in
numbers of buildings and numbers of stu
dents. In terms of serious intent of schol
astic endeavor, the University seems defin
itely on the up-grade.
• The Honors College has brought a
new tone to scholarship in the last three
years. The student leaders in Honors Col
lege have provided the opportunity for
group discussion in the Honors College
Lounge and have initiated weekly dis
cussions on topics of campus-wide interest.
• The number of married students en
rolled at the University has increased since
the 1950’s, after the tone for the attached
student was set in the late 1940’s by re
turning veterans. This has brought a feel
ing of stability and serious intent among
some areas of student population because
of the necessity of meeting family and aca
demic obligations simultaneously.
• The number of graduate students has
gradually increased in the last decade and
a half, from 597 in 1949 to 1,583 in 1962.
With a total University enrollment of
around 10/900, the graduates have come to
represent approximately 10 per cent of the
student body.
• The augmented summer school pro
gram is also drawing more lower division
students who see the advantage of year
round class schedules and the opportunity
for stronger academic concentration in par
ticular areas of interest which cannot be
accommodated in the usual nine month
school year. The growing numbers of the
summer enrollees indicates that intellec
tual endeavor is important to the general
student. ^
Students in specialized categories are
not the only ones increasing their num
bers. The total University enrollment is
up, to say the least. In the last 10 years
the number of men coming here has been
increased by nearly 95 per cent, and the
number of women enrollees has increased
by approximately 130 per cent. These fig
ures represent trends of the changing Uni
versity of Oregon may well bs of interest
to leaders in student government, who must
see to the needs and interests of all por
tions of the campus population. Univer
sity building, curriculum, and general ser
vice planners must also be cognizant of
the total picture of the people with whom
they will work. The public at large should
also be encouraged by the nature and ambi
tion of the people who are receiving educa
tions in part through public tax money. The
view for the future seems just as bright
as a University education becomes a valu
able asset in a student’s later life and
proof of serious intent of his undertaking.
i *-'.»AAAocNif4
*<SIVE IT TO ME STRAIGHT, &OC....HOV4 LON<i HAVE I C*OT l"
ML&tey ■
We should seek
what we need
ASL'O Senator at Large Mike
Estey was one of four senators
who favored the general philos
ophy of the majority discipline
report, but voted against a Sen
ate motion to endorse It because
of a disagreement on sperifir
recommendations.
The only reason advanced
thus far explaining the "weak
majority endorsement" is that
some senators haggled over
specifics. It appears as if some
senators do not truly represent
their constituents—as it is oh
vious that a majority of the
student body favors the majority
report
First, let it be understood that
as far as the philosophy is con
cerned, the vote would be closer
to 19 5. This Ls representative
of student feeling. But it is the
opinion of this senator that the
students are tired of their Sen
ate asking for consideration far
beyond their needs—be it a
budget request or a liberalisa
tion of discipline codes. It is
time we sought what we actually
need.
It is my contention, and it is
shared by many of your other
senators, that by displaying in
telligence regarding our do
mands from "higher up”—they
will, in a short while, come to
trust and respect our judgment
When this happens the "higher
ups” will not have the feeling
that they have a responsibility
to protect us from ourselves.
Letters to
the Editor
Parliamentary Procedure
Emerald Editor:
Concerning the ASUO Senate
and their manner of handling
problems and procedures, it ap
pears quite evident that a good
majority of the senators do not
know parliamentary rulings to
any useful extent.
Last Thursday evening there
was too much time wasted in
quibbling about which motions
take preference, which require
two-thirds majority to pass and
which can be interrupted. Al
though there is no dire need for
a course in parliamentary pro
cedures (this would not do any
of our senators much harm),
there is a need for at least a
single reference stieet Illustrat
ing the simple procedures on
motions.
With a reference sheet before
them, it would have been less
(Continued on page 3)
The Senate is capable of
handling this themselves We
are going to try. And it is when
we reach this position in the
eyes of the administration, that
the Senate will be a tremendous
asset to the students.
The relevance the discusion
above has to the Majority Re
port is:
• 1) The committee that is
to formulate the codes can ac
tually only make use of the
philosophy. At best, a couple of
the specifics (revised) could tie
carried over.
• 2) The specific recommen
dations. therefore, serve no ben
efit except to clarify the idea
behind the philosophy This
clarification is no longer need
ed. All it does is cause revisions,
rejection (opinions, argument,
stalemate—and we have the
status quo.
The committee then concludes
that the students had the right
idea Hut instead of taking a
step in the right direction,”
they let the idea “run away
with them.”
The end result: We get no
where.
The Emerald publishes views
of'ASUO officers in column form
as a public service The views
expressed by columnists do not
necessarily represent those of
The Emerald.
OREGON DA IT A* EMERALD
The Oregon Dali) Emerald is published
•even time* in September and five day* a
week during the school year. exi>-pt dur
ing examination and vacation period* by
the Student Publication* Board ol the
University of Oregon. Entered a* Sf'■ nd
elas* matter at the post office, E.ugene,
Oregon. Subscription rate*: $5 per year;
$2 per term.
Opinion* expre**cd on the editorial t age
are three of The Emerald and do not pre
tend to represent the opinion* ol the
ASI’O or the University.
KVKRKTTE DENNIS, Editor
LARRY WILLIAMS
Business Manager
JANET GOET/.K, Managing Editor
RON COWAN, New* Editor
DOUG RAGKN.
Editorial Page Editor
JIM SI'EKR,
Advertising Manager
DICK RICHARDSON,
Associate Editor
JIM FRAKE,
Assistant Managing Editor
RAN' MAST, Sport* Editor
CANDY HEMMING,
CATHY NEVILLE,
Assistant News Editor*
GEORGE HICHAM, Photo Editor
CHICK IIEGGS, JOE BERGER,
PHYLLIS KI.VING,
Associate News Editors
ALENE SHARFF
Entertainment Editor
JO GRISWOLD, Women’s Editor