Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 24, 1963)
Let’s Get Together Dual Committees on Fees Sidestep the Issue The recent action of the University fac ulty denying student participation in the committee which will probe the question of compulsory student fees with a partic ular concern for athletics was disillusioning. We were disappointed when the same faculty that told students they are indepen dent and mature individuals excluded stu dents from the influential ad hoc commit tee. President Flemming‘s proposal for a student committee on compulsory fees is encouraging. Establishment of the student committee which will parallel the faculty committee was a diplomatic approach to the problem and will probably meet with favor in both student and faculty groups. A realistic analysis of the situation illus trates that the establishment of the student committee really sidesteps the basic issue involved. Theoretically the student and fac ulty committees serve the same function: to study the matter and make recommen dations. The student committee will report to the ASUO Senate, which will in turn make a recommendation to President Flem ming. The faculty committee brings its recommendation to the full faculty which in turn also goes to President Flemming and on to the State Board of Higher Edu cation. The basic issue is whether students should participate in the decision-making process in regard to the use of student fees. We believe that students do have the right to be involved in this probe of the student fee question. The student fees do not provide academic programs, but stu dent services. Although President Flemming is sympa thetic to student views, the fundamental University power structure puts a faculty committee in a position of political one-up manship. We recognize that joint meetings of the two committees will be held. We are hopeful that this will eliminate dupli cation of functions of the two committees. We still believe that students have a right to participate in the decision-making pro cess. We hope that the voice of the exclu sive student committee will be heard and that student opinion will be fully consider ed before any decisions are made. There seems to be a little logical explanation for denial of student participation on the fac ulty committee. Students were on the fac ulty committee which studied discipline last year. It is encouraging to see students enthusiasm in gathering material for the committee even before it is formed. It is regrettable that they cannot work with the faculty on the matter. It seems to us that in a true University community the faculty would want to work with the stu dents in seeking common objectives. Budget Cuts By Priority An argument expressed in the Eugene Register-Guard’s Tuesday editorial columns “Taking Lumps’’ is somewhat questionable. “Taking Lumps” maintained that since the voters of Oregon have shown they want spending cutbacks, these cutbacks should be distributed more or less propor tionately among all the state agencies. As the Register-Guard phrases its stand on legislative budgeting—in podiatrist’s terms —“Far better that they step on many toes lightly than they chop off some feet.” The implication of this proposal is that no effort should be made to arrange a pri ority list for state agencies; rather all agencies will continue to exist, lopping off marginal services and economizing on all operations. Obviously, they accept the as sumption that there are expenditure priori ties among activities within a given state agency. It seems only logical and consistent that there are also expenditure priorities among agencies. It is the total state budg et that was turned down. This rejection does not imply either proportionate state agency budget cuts. Rather it is a directive to examine all state spending programs on their own merits, to make relative com parisons and then make cuts with minimum loss of public need. The Register-Guard is concerned that “If budget cuts were to be centered only upon certain agencies . . . those agencies could be ruined.” It very well may be that some agencies deserve this treatment. Certain ly, an agency such as the State Board of Higher Education, which has a large capi tal investment, deserves a higher priority than agencies where loss of previous capi tal investment won’t be incurred because of budget cuts. Herblock “It’s Peaccmongering And Creeping Private Enterprise, That’s What It Is!” Letters To the Editor Disagrees With Policy Emerald Editor: For some strange reason The Emerald ran a Herblock cartoon in a recent issue, a good car toon commenting on the cur rent visit of Mme. Nhu of South Viet Nam I can only guess that you printed it because you needed something to fill in some space on your otherwise barren editorial page. I wonder how many of your readers had even the faintest notion of the implications of the political comment — how many have any idea of what's going on in the world outside the boundaries of the campus. This letter is not so much a comment on the indifference of the student as it is on the os trieh-like indifference of the editorial policy-makers of The Emerald I hope it is indifference and not ignorance or just plain stu pidity. I havfe searched each is sue of The Emerald this term hoping for just some slight ref erence to things like revolutions in Central America, hurricanes in the Caribbean, test-ban trea ties, wheat deals, etc. There may have been some mention of these events, but I don’t use a microscope to read the paper. The point I am trying to make is simple: I don’t think you people have a notion of your responsibility to your read ers. We are not located in a large metropolitan area where most students live at home and have opportunities to read local newspapers. The University is a largely isolated community and for most of the students the main con tact they have with the rest of the world is through the pages of The Emerald. Anti what does that contact consist of? As far as I can tell, a front page filled exclusively with the not-so-shat tering doings of campus per sonalities; two pages of sports; a panel and unimaginative edi torial page and occasional angry letters to the editor. Your whining rejoinder to such criticism will probably be along the lines of: "Well, what do you expect? If the students are really interested in world events they'll buy other papers or listen to the TV or radio. Our job is to cover the cam pus.” At least this is the general idea I got late last term when I spoke to the editor about this sit uation. I was told also that there would be some small attempt to include a few words on world coverage in each issue. This has not happened; in fact, just the opposite has oc curred. Last year there were (Continued on patje 3) [iiimirmininiBnnmnirnimrinnuiniiiRniuinHrnTinnHn H ayne Morse and Higher Educatton iiijiiiiiijijiiimutiuiiiitiiiuiutiitijuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiuiiun Opportunities for Average Students Opportunities for average stu dents in institutions of higher education was on Wayne Morse’s mind when he addressed a Char ter Day convocation last week. Although Morse’s speech ex pressed a genuine concern for the future of the American edu cational process it is doubtful that even the senator was aware of the timeliness of his thesis and its application to the state’s current education debate. The senior senator, a former teacher and dean at the University, could not have selected a more appropriate topic for his audi ence. The flamboyant political lead er warned that the United States may deprive itself of the vast resources of the human mind if it closes its doors to the aver age student. Morse went on to say “the C student must be giv en equal educational opportun ity.” Morse spoke to the large stu dent-faculty audience a day aft er the people of Oregon turn ed down the legislature’s tax increase program. One of the far-reaching effects which the defeat of the tax program may provide is increased academic standards which will deprive many students now attending the University of educational opportunity. The State Board of Higher Education has warned that it may increase both resident and non-resident academic stan dards for admission, thus cut ting down enrollments. This will allow the University budg et to be distributed for pro grams that will serve a smaller number of University students. The University has used a selective retention program ra ther than a selective admission system. It has been the intention of the University administra tors to maintain a utilitarian ap proach in offering education to most Oregon high school gradu ates. University President Arthur S. Flemming has also expressed interest in the “C” student. He reinforced his campus state ments on the matter with an ar ticle which he wrote for Good Housekeeping more than a year ago. It has been necessary for the University to step beyond most other state institutions in pro viding a place for the average students because of Oregon’s lack of adequate community colleges. Education leaders have been hopeful that increased aca demic standards would not be instituted until after the estab lishment of an adequate junior college system. Not only has the University maintained concern for the average student which Sen. fc»en. Wayne Iviorse Morse calls “the backbone” of American civilization, but has also provided special programs for exceptional and marginal students. The Honors College is a program for above-average students who seek the small college atmosphere within a large state university. Last summer a special pro gram aided marginal students. The program provided special counseling for students who were predicted academic casual ties according to their college board scores The University Counseling Center and Office of Student Affairs provided more than 400 marginals with special guidance regarding courses, in structors, student life and the problems which they would be likely to encounter at the Uni versity. Sen. Morse’s thesis has mer it. The state does have a res ponsibility to make education al opportunities available to the average student. But it is not the state’s responsibility to pam per and provide easy avenues for the academically underde veloped. The state’s only respon sibility is to provide them with programs which will allow devel opment of their abilities to the highest possible degree. The University has had many students who did not develop an interest in academics in their freshman year yet later went on to become productive members of society. The inten tions of the State Board to in crease standards prior to the development of a junior college system sets a dangerous prece dent. Statements by men like Sen. Morse and President Flem ming should be reinforced by student organizations if the Uni versity’s average student popu lation plans to remain here after this term. OREGON DAILY EMERALD The Oregon Daily Emerald in published twice in September and five day* a week during the academic year, except during ex amination and vacation period* by the Stu dent Publication* Hoard of the University of Oregon. Entered a* second class matter at the poat office, Eugene, Oregon. Subserip* tion rute* $5 per year; $2 per term. Opinion* expressed on the editorial page are thoic of the Emerald and do not pre tend to rcpre*unt the opinion of the ASIJO or the University. KVERETTE DENNIS. Editor LARRY WILLIAMS, Business Manager
