Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 14, 1963)
Tuition Remission Plan A Welcome Break for Out-of-Staters In Need of Financial Assistance The most encouraging piece of higher education legislation to come through this year’s session at Salem is the ten per cent tuition rebate plan proposed by the Joint Ways and Means Educational Subcommit tee. This week the administrative frame work for the generous remission plan gets underway. If the plan materializes as ad ministrators believe it will, it will become the most liberal scholarship plan for non residents in th$ West. President Flemming made it known in a letter mailed to all out-of-state students and at his Monday press conference that the University is doing all in its power to help qualified non-residents solve their financial problems. The plan should encourage a large number of non-residents to remain at the University instead of transferring to another school. Any out-of-state student who is making “normal progress toward graduation . . . in need of financial assistance” will be giv en full consideration for a tuition remis sion. Students should begin filing fee remis sion applications so the faculty committee can make their decisions before spring term ends. Non-residents may receive a maxi mum fee remission of $90 per term and $200 per term for Alaskan and Hawaiian students who otherwise would have faced a 200 per cent tuition increase. We join President Flemming in asking out-of-state students to delay their decisions in regard to leaving the University. The president has acted with good faith in mov ing rapidly in setting up the administrative framework for the fee remission plan. We are hopeful that the fee remission plan will merit consideration and attention from the out-of-staters and that it will offset the negative psychological impact of the $270 tuition increase. Many of the students who have declared they will transfer to another institution have not fully considered the tuition remissions. The most difficult task will be in inform ing incoming freshmen that the remission system exists. The University has had only limited time to consider this area. Greater Oregon will not have time to work effective ly on this problem on such short notice, so it will remain the responsibility of non residents to inform outstanding high school students in their communities of the plan. The remission plan as it has been outlined for new students and transfers will seek to attract non-resident students with high academic qualifications in the future. At a modified level it will make academic ach ievement rather than financial ability the prerequisite for higher education in Ore gon for non-residents. Over the long run the remission plan will tend to bring better students to the University from other states. While we con tinue to deplore the unjustified tuition in crease, we believe that the remission plan is a progressive partial remedy to the ex tensive psychological shock which the in crease caused. Financial need caused by the increase should not exclude any non residents next fall. We urge out-of-staters to fully inform themselves about the plan. A Promise Is Still a Promise The Money For Education Must Be Provided The Eugene Register-Guard makes an in teresting analysis of the Corbett-Mosser bonding plan in this editorial. We reprint it here. * ❖ * Sen. Alfred Corbett, Portland Democrat, made a telling point last Monday in a joint meeting of the State Board of Higher Edu cation and a Ways and Means subcommit tee. He said, in effect, that Oregon’s tradi tional program for campus buildings is aimed at keeping the students warm and dry and amused, but not necessarily at making them smarter. Those weren’t his words, but that’s what he was getting at. Oregon can issue bonds for such things as dormitories and student activity centers. But it can’t, the way the law has been in terpreted, issue bonds for classroom build ings. Those must be paid for in hard cash. Hard cash is something the Legislature is notoriously short of. Thus there is some legislative temptation to dip into the bond ing capacity and try using that for class rooms. The difference between the two kinds of buildings should not be over looked. Dormitories, student centers and buildings of that kind are, in the term, “self-liquidating.” That is, they are paid for from rentals and profits, as they are being used. No tax money goes into them. The classroom buildings do not show a direct profit. The Register-Guard thinks the moral ob ligation is clear. Educators, with the back ing of the Legislature, made a promise. They ought to stick to it. No hanky-panky, please. However, this newspaper also believes, as it believed at the time of the 1960 elec tion, that it is proper to bond for academic buildings. We do it for grade schools and high schools. We do it for our businesses and our homes, borrowing ahead for the buildings we’ll be using over the years. There is no good reason why the principle should not be extended to college buildings. However, the people must first approve such bonds. The proper course for the Leg islature now is to put the question to the voters no later than next May, and possibly at a special election. Some three years would elapse between voter approval of the bonds and the first use of the new buildings. And those buildings are needed right now. By 1967, the need will be press ing, indeed. The System of Higher Education had a superb organization at work for it in 1960, when it promoted authority for the dormi tory bonds. Possibly that organization can be reassembled now to carry the message again to every village in Oregon. The need is pressing. Meanwhile, to answer the immediate need, the legislators ought to scratch a little deeper. Higher education says it needs $47 million in buildings in the 1963-1965 biennium. The governor says it can do with only $20 million worth. The ways and means committee is talking of $10 million in cash, another $10 million in bonds. The likeli hood is that history will repeat itself and show the Board of Higher Education to be right again. Certainly the governor’s $20 million is skimpy enough. That money just must be provided, and it ought to be provided in cash until the voters indi cate their willingness to pass the bill on to future generations. !»«■ • - • Jh y fjt^oug nm l.i The Oregon Legislature An Analysis of Inaction Doug Combs is a member of the Emerald Editorial Board and President of Phi Signta Kappa fraternity. In legislative terms if there were a direct correlation be tween time spent and accom plishments the Oregon Legisla ture after nearly four months of session would be ready to wind up its business. But the fact remains that this time has pass ed and no major pieces of legis lation have been approved The members of the legislature have done little or nothing at all to wards passing the state welfare budget or the State Board of Higher Education budget, which combined comprise the major ity of the state’s total budget. They have also failed to pass any adequate tax legislation. What is the problem? Possi bly, they feel that they are "damned if they do and and damned if they don’t" with the result that they are afraid to act. It is common knowledge that on nearly every item that passes, someone is hurt by it or is against it for other reasons. Are the legislators afraid of the voices of protest? Do they feel that by inaction they will be able to escape severe criticism? Or is it the fact that next year is an election year and after all—who wants to antagonize po tential votes? It seems to come down to this: the Oregon Legislators may be afraid of criticism. This could very easily be. Criticism and protest are forms of pres sure. On April 2, Sen. Pearson made a comment to the effect that they (the legislators) are tired of being pressured. They seem to forget that pressure and the different forms it may take, such as protest and criticism, are some of the main ways a group attempts to get their leg islation passed. These are legi timate parts of the political process—an outlet for a group to make their demands known and a means for them to peace fully agitate for its passage. In other societies without this outlet, the means often take the About Letters Letters to the editor must be signed and should include, if from a student, the writer’s year and major. If not from a student they should contain the writer’s position at the Univer sity or his address. form of subversive activity or even revolt Every politician in any democratic society is sub ject to this pressure in one form or another, which is an in tegral and accepted part of the system. If a politician cannot cope with pressure and de mands from his constituents, possibly he is in the wrong busi ness. Another aspect of the current session is that the expense ac counts of the members expire after 120 days. At the end of this time, which is drawing very near, what will happen? The prospects of any major legisla tion being passed are very dim indeed. When the 120 days ex pire will the legislators remain in Salem and try to get some thing accomplished, will they act haphazardly in an attempt to get through, or will they ad journ without acting? Only time and the legislators them selves have the answer, which will be framed in the context of whom they are serving—the State of Oregon as a whole or themselves. OREGON DAILY EMERALD The Oregon Daily Emerald in published •even time* in September and five day* a week during the »chool year, except dur ing examination and vacation period* by the Student Publication* Board of the University of Oregon. Entered a* second clan* matter at the post office, Eugene, Oregon. Subscription rate*: $5 per year; $2 per term. Opinion* expressed on the editorial page are those of The Emerald and do not pre tend to represent the opinion* of the ASUO or the University. EVER LTTE DENNIS. Editor LARRY WILLIAMS Business Manager JANET GOETZE, Managing Editor RON COWAN, News Editor DOUG HAGEN, Editorial Page Editor JIM SPEER, Advertising Manager DICK RICHARDSON, Associate Editor JIM FRAKE, Assistant Managing Editor RAY MAST, Sports Editor CATHY NEVILLE, Assistant News Editor GEORGE HIGH AM, Photo Editor CHUCK HEGGS, TOE BERGER, PHYLLIS KLVING, SHERRY LUCAS Associate News Editors ALENE SHARFF Entertainment Editor JO GRISWOLD, Women’* Editor NO MI BORKNSTKIN, Exchange Editor EDITORIAL BOARD : Everette Dennis, Ron Cowan, Janet Goetze, Doug Hagen, Dick Richardson Jim Frake, Jerry Utti, Ray Mast, Larry Williams, Pam Pashko** ski, Doug Combs, Linda Brown, Cathy Neville, Pat Holt, Simeon Crowther.