Oregon Daily Emerald
Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of the
Emerald and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the
ASUO or the University. Opinions expressed in signed columns
are those of the writer.
PHIL SEMAS, Editor
ANNETTE BUCHANAN
Managing Editor
LARRY LANGE
News Editor
WILBUR BISHOP JR.
Business Manager
CLIFF SANDERLIN
Editorial Page Editor
University of Oregon, Eugene. Thursday. October 13, 1966
Stadium Donors
Merit Choice Seats
The ASUO Senate will probably vote today on a bill on
studeut seating in the new stadium. Unless they are very
careful, the senators will wind up looking very late and even
more ungrateful.
As it was presented to the Senate last week the bill read
in part:
. when the stadium is completed and functioning, there
shall be no preferential seating of faculty, administrators,
groups or individuals over the seating of students . . .
Apparently the Senate is getting all excited about rumors
that students are going to wind up sitting in the end zone
while the people who gave money to build the stadium get
all the good seats.
Before they vote, we invite the senators to look at the
facts.
First of all. the stadium is being financed from $1.4 mil
lion in private gifts. $900,000 from Athletic Department
funds, which is all or part student fees, depending on whose
viewpoint you take. That means that the people who gave
that $1.4 million contributed over half the cost so that
students will be able to attend home games in Eugene
without having to travel to Portland every year. Since they
gave that money, we think those people deserve some prefer
ential seating.
Second, the Senate is about six months too late with its
concern. Indeed, the present Senate concern flies in the face
Of a bill passed by last year’s Senate recommending that no
additional student fees be used. In order to comply with
that request (and it was a request we supported whole
heartedly). the University had to get money from donors.
It was stated at the time that one of the selling points for
getting donors would be to offer preferences in seating.
There was no howl of indignation at the time, so it seems a
little out of place now.
Third, and most important, there is no reason why stu
dents can’t have 50-vard-line seats, even though donors
$re also given mid-field seats. There are a maximum of
2,000 donors, meaning a maximum of 4.000 seats. But many
of those people won't take all their options every year,
which means there'll be less than that number.
In any case, it should be possible to give those people
50-vard-line seats and still give students plenty of good
seats.
The Senate should make it clear that students deserve
good seats. But there's no reason to go around with a chip
Qn our shoulder about the people who made the stadium
possible.
^ /KM
/
■jmkl
/wsuoR
AMO
AU/£S
1
'tu/g
♦pouglf SOUTA'R^ ANYONE f"
MW- • V-VVM
, ,/joint vSoren&imn ru ..••hum—»ni »*«
Climate of Classroom
Often Poses Threat
Editor’s Note: This Is the fourth in a series describing the
experiences of Emerald Associate Editor Nonii Borenstein at a
“Summer Seminar on Issues in Higher Education." sponsored by
the United States Student Press Association (USSPA). The
seminar attended by 16 college newspaper editors and two admin
istrators was held at St. John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland.
Dave Bradford was the only guest speaker who was more effected
by the airline strike than the USSPA Seminar.
The time Bradford, a psychology student at the University of
Michigan, was to spend at Annapolis he spent instead at an airport
waiting for a plane to take him there.
But Bradford did influence the tenor and direction of the seminar
through his 12 page paper—"An Analysis of the College Clnssroom.”
The paper is based on the thesis that college classrooms are not
structured and organized in a way that makes them the most effec
tive learning settings.
Not only does Bradford describe what he feels is wrong with the
“structure” of learning, but he advocates a new system—"student
or group oriented learning"—which he feels will go a long way to
correcting the situation.
Bradford's first objection to the “structure” as it now stands is
that the professor makes all or most of the meaningful decisions—
what will be covered in lectures, the reading list, what is "right
or wrong” on the exams, how to handle disciplinary problems, bore
dom, and topics for discussion.
ALLOWS PASSIVE ROLE
This in itself is not so bad because most of the power and influ
ence in Uie classroom must rest on the teacher if he is to carry
out all of these responsibilities.
Bradfords strongest objection is that the structure of most
classes allows the students to play only a fairly passive role. Why?
Because the student feels prime responsibility for himself. The
decisions he makes are usually those that effect only him. Thus,
he feels only a minor responsibility for others in the class or for
the progress of the class as a whole.
Bradford also notes that the conversation in most classrooms is
teacher-centered and it is the professor who determines the “cli
mate" of the group.
He points out that even in seminars where the professor does not
talk as much, the discussions usually flow between the prof and the
students and less among the students.
And it is rarely, Bradford notes, that a student makes procedural
comments such as suggesting that it is time to move on to another
topic. Students are usually asking for information or giving it in
response to the instructor’s questions.
As for the climate of the class, Bradford contends that it is more
often competitive than co-operative.
Many students feel that the climate of the classroom poses more
of a feeling of personal threat than of acceptance of their ideas.
To support his position, Bradford says that students are more apt
to “shoot each other down than to build on a position that someone
else has developed.
TOO MUCH ON INFORMATION
This competition comes not only from the grading system which
pits students against each other, but from the attitudes of some
instructors. Although many teachers are in favor of the idea of
students helping each other in the abstract, Bradford says many are
often “hesitant about building a feeling of co-operation and we-ness
among students.”
Another characteristic of the teacher-centered system which has
been widely debated by Bradford and other interested students and
educators is the area of learning itself. Many feel that it concen
trates too much on information and getting the right answer—
instead of on attitudes, or how to apply what you have learned in
a psych class.
Bradford’s paper questions not only what happens in the average
classroom but the assumption that the classroom has to be organ
ized along traditional lines because of how students act. He, along
with many student “educational activists" across the country feel
that it may be more accurate to say that students act the way they
do because of the structure of the classroom.
If the structure is changed, they contend that “not only would
there be higher motivation and greater commitment by students
but there would actually be more learned—and what is learned
would not be as quickly forgotten.”
Emerald
Editor
All letter* to the editor must
be typewritten and double
spaced. Letters must not exceed
300 words und must be signed
in ink, Riving the class and
major of the writer. Those deal
ing with one subject and per
taining to the University or Ku
gene community will be given
preference. The Emerald re
serves the right to edit letters
for style, grammar, punctuation,
and potentially libelous content.
Letters not meeting these cri
teria and those which are mimeo
graphed or otherwise obvious
duplicates will be returned.
* * *
The Creation
Emerald Editor:
How student parking was
usurped with five easy words:
On the first day God made
the heavens and the earth, the
sun and the moon. On the sec
ond day God made man and the
institution. His greatest good.
On the third day God made
the faculty and the staff and
students just for measure. On
the fourth day God made the
parking lot and the automobile;
all could park freely
And on the fifth day God rest
ed. for His work was good.
Henceforth man would rule the
institution with equality for
all. On the sixth day man made
registration lines to facilitate
student enrollment; he created
turmoil.
On the seventh day man made
the faculty meeting and the
student government. The for
mer’s rule was good On the
eighth day man made the park
ing citation to demonstrate his
omnipotence. He segregated stu
dents from stalf.
On the ninth day man closed
four student lots because there
was a net increase of 120 new
instructors. And on the tenth
day man rested, for he undid
in four days what God did in
the same and had empty lots to
spare.
(P.S. Any students dissatis
fied with parking arrangements
please let it be known.)
Ralph Jones
Junior, pre-med.
Oregon Daily Emerald
Noml Borensteln, Associate Editor
Dave Barontl, Sports Editor
Maxine Elliott, Feature Editor
Mike rancher, Assistant News Editor
Tom Thompson, Photo Editor
Jay Tlllapaugh and Steve Dlmeo,
Entertainment Editors
Editorial Board: Phil Sernas, Cliff San
derlln, Annette Buchanan, Larry
Lange, Noml Borensteln. Maxine
Elliott, Dave Barontl, Vance Welty,
Bob Holmes, Uobln Tuttle, Gary
Barnes, Chuck Pruitt, Tom Nash,
Dave McCloskey, Roger Leo, Spen
cer Block, Jean Snider.
Counselor Orientation Article
‘Left Much To Be Desired’
Editor’s Note: Jeffry Cook is a
graduate in business and one of
the dormitory counselors inter
viewed by Emerald Associate
Editor No mi Borenstein for an
article printed in the October 6
edition.
By JEFFRY J. COOK
I would like to comment on
the article concerning counselor
orientation that was in your Oc
tober 6 issue of the Emerald. It
seems to me that Miss Nomi
Borenstein obviously has much
to learn about ethics and profes
sionalism as far as her efforts
in journalism are concerned.
The style and wording of her
article on counselor orientation
left much to be desired. I also
found several other faults with
the article.
First of all, Miss Borenstein
implied that she had talked to
counselors after we had had stu
dents in the dorms for two
weeks. But she called me and
several other counselors at the
end of new student week and
the first part of the week that
classes started, and not two
weeks after students had moved
in. Also, I feel that Miss Boren
stein conveyed many of her
own feelings in the article.
She attended sessions of coun
selor orientation and sat in on
orientation group discussions.
Thus, I feel much of what she
reported came from her own
feelings and impressions of the
orientation and not all from pro
fessional interviewing of coun
selors.
When Miss Borenstein called
on me to talk about this year’s
orientation, I informed her that
because of delays in my travel
schedule I was only able to
attend the last day and a half of
training. Thus, I told her I felt
unqualified to comment on this
year’s orientation. Furthermore,
I told her it would not be proper
for me to comment on such mat
ters as I had to be concerned
about my position with the Hous
ing Office.
I finally did agree to answer
some of Miss Borenstein’s gen
eral questions about my position
as a counselor if I felt that the
questions were not of a contro
versial nature. I also told her
I would answer such questions
only if my name was not used
in the article, and only if I was
in no way quoted. This, she
promised, would be the case.
Obviously she did not keep her
word.
Furthermore, Miss Borenstein
wrote her article in such a
manner as to make what I said
and what other counselors said
fit into what she wanted her ar
ticle to convey. I would agree
that I am most concerned about
quiet hours and study condi
tions in my dorm, but her phras
ing of this would lead one to
believe this is the “only” rule
I am concerned about rather
than this is the rule I am most
concerned about.
I found myself misquoted as
well as quoted out of context
in the article. As seems to be
(Continued on faye 7)