Oregon daily emerald., March 01, 1972, Page 9, Image 9

c
Editorial
ASUO budget is sound
The ASUO Fiscal Committee has taken a
new tack in its thinking about the ASUO
budget this year and it is a sound one. The
committee’s major philosophy in looking at
proposed budgets has been one of looking for
the greatest benefit for the greatest number
of students. This philosophy is not a new one
but it is new to the fiscal committee.
Many people are not happy with their
individual budgets and some adjustments
will be made. But cuts had to be made to
reduce incidental fees and most of the cuts
are sound.
One of the more controversial and least
understood cuts was in Supportive Services;
Project Continuation, Project Life, Project
75 and SESAMEX. None of these programs
has been budgeted by the fiscal committee
this year, they have been given nothing for
next year. This does not mean, however, that
these programs will be without money for
emergencies and sudden contingencies. A
voluntary check-off system will be instituted
so students may indicate whether they wish
the remainder of their breakage deposit to be
assigned to these programs. ASUO President
Iain More has already given these programs
priority for the distribution of this money.
Another complete cut was in Forensics.
This cut is easily justified under the fiscal
committee’s criteria of the “most good for
the most students.” The majority of the
forensics budget was used for travel ex
penses for eight or ten people to attend
debate tournaments. Only a small portion of
the budget was allocated for speakers to
travel around the state and speak at civic
organizations; the most justifiable part of the
budget but dubious in itself.
Other complete cuts made were Illahe
School, a project that has been under fire for
some time; the Interfratemity Council,
which should be supported interfratemally
rather than by the majority of students who
do not live in fraternities; Native American
Tutorial Program, a duplication of services
and the Student Bar Association, which was
eventually put under the Graduate Student
Council budget. This shows the members of
the fiscal committee took an unusually hard
and cold look at budgets this year and this is
proper in times when a university survey
showed the majority of students who failed to
return to the University did so because they
could not afford to.
It was interesting to note that women and
their interests were considered in a favorable
light by the committee. University Feminists
were recommended to receive $2365.85 for its
programs. This money, if approved by the
senate, should not be considered as a
payment out of. guilt but rather as money for
a group with a very large constituency.
Two increases also need to be explained.
The ASUO executive’s budget was increased
from the requested $25,830 to $56,830. This is
because of subscription negotiations with the
Emerald and not some mad grab for high
salaries. Also the senate gained nearly
$10,000. This includes travel budgets and
other funds so that requests may be held
accountable. The fiscal committee and the
senate will handle this money.
All in all this is probably the best thought
out budget in years. It is not perfect and the
senate will make some adjustments, but it is
a good first step in re-thinking how student
incidental fees will be spent. It is now up to
the senate. Hopefully they will be as creative
and careful in their changes as the fiscal
committee was.
Letters
A few corrections
There were a few inaccuracies in the
article in Tuesday’s Emerald entitled,
“Experimental college proposals
discussed,” The article reported segments
of a meeting held last Friday by the
Educational Experimentation, Innovation,
and Improvement committee to develop a
proposal for a new University-wide
college. The inaccuracies:
1. We are not talking about “a school
with no classes and no teachers.” Rather,
we are talking about a college which would
be the gathering point for in
terdisciplinary, independent, and ex
perimental studies at the University.
Classes are very much a part of our
proposal; teachers, or at least facilitators,
are essential.
2. The new college would not be a
“redesignation of the Honors College.”
Rather, the new college would be a
University-wide program (the Honors
College is in the College of Liberal Arts).
We do hope to be able to incorporate the
Independent Studies program (now in the
Honors College) and make it University
wide. But other than that, our proposal is
quite separate from the Honors College.
3. We are not talking about simply an
“experimental college.” Rather, we are
talking about a college which incorporates
interdisciplinary, independent, and ex
perimental studies. At this time, given the
University’s financial crisis, we are not
talking about any new programs—only a
reorganization of existing programs
presently scattered across the University.
4. We are not, at this time, talking about
a college “almost entirely composed of
independent studies.” Again, we are
dealing within the present financial
constraints of the University. Initially,
Independent Studies would only be a minor
part of the new college. We would hope,
however, that as money became available
that the University would consider
enlarging the Independent Studies
program a top priority.
I hope this helps clear up whatever
ambiguity may exist between what people
read in the Emerald and what they may
have heard us say.
David Sonnenfdd
Sociology
Co-op
If the Co-op is so concerned about
“inefficient and economically unsound”
business practices as to defeat the
proposal to hire only students (the only
“co-operative” move that has been at
tempted around that giant misnomer
sitting on the corner of 13th and Kincaid),
then why does it maintain the highly
inefficient gift “shoppe” and jewelry
display areas and their attendant per
sonnel, which serve only a small per
centage of the students and just add to the
overhead? If the Co-op was staffed by its
student members—more in true “Co-op
form—perhaps it would be more aware of
and responsive to today’s students’ in
terests, at least as far as merchandise and
appeal is concerned, and some of its
present overhead could be returned to its
members in the form of increased rebates.
Harriet Reynolds
Senior
'I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADVISE YOU ON YOUR SCHOOL BUSING PROBLEM—IF I
WANT TO BUS PEOPLE SOMEPLACE, I JUST GO AHEAD AND BUS 'EM!'
Project Puritan
My friends on the faculties of the
University of Oregon and Oregon State
University have codenamed a plan to
restore the Catholie-Protestant traditions
of all-out sacrifice for our churches and
education which constitute part of our
sacred heritage brought to the Willamette
Valley by the pioneers since the days of the
Hudson's Bay Company and the arrival in
our valley of Catholic and Protestant
missionaries.
The codename of this plan has been
designated by Dr. John MacGregor,
professor of sociology at Oregon State
University who has given us the
designation, Project Puritan.
The point of departure of Project
Puritan is what the late and very great
Harvard historian and all-time authority
on American Puritanism, Professor Perry
Miller, held in his views of the Willamette
Valley. He stated that in the last century
the moral, spiritual, intellectual and ec
clesiastical center of gravity of this
republic moved out from Boston and New
England after the Civil War to the
Willamette Valley. Professor Miller
snowed mat in terms ot new ideas and
programsour valley had tended to become
the great national bastion of revolutionary
Catholic-Protestant Puritanism in the
noblest and finest sense of the term.
Hence, Professor Miller held, the
Willamette Valley became the moral,
spiritual, intellectual and religious think
tank of this country as Boston formerly
was. Perry Miller's views have been
generally accepted by other historians.
Project Puritan would, using foundation
money, assemble and trace the 140-year
history of the underground, the Puritan
underground, and its incredible record of
close Catholic-Protestant fierce dedication
and collaboration in moral, spiritual,
intellectual and ecclesiastical challenges.
My friends feel our underground tradition
of willingness to put life and property on
the line for church and education is in
deadly peril.
TTie hope is that real valley history as
above described, once written, will help to
re-educate our people and educate
newcomers and help reverse the withering
climates of Judaism and Christianity and
their historic handmaiden, education. Our
churches, synagogues, schools, colleges
and universities are facing desperate
times.
Robert Prescott. Jr.
Eugene