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.