Commentary
John Orbell
Library woes hurt teaching
John Orbell is an associate professor of political science
at the University.
As a teacher at this university, I believe it is my job
to select the best possible materials in the area I know
something about, organize them according to my best
judgement, and present them to students in a manner
that will arouse their interest and (even) enthusiasm.
Designing a course always involves a series of decisions
in these terms, and I always hope that my decisions
result in the best possible course being offered.
This year the financial crisis at the university, and
the manner in which the cuts are being made, make it
virtually impossible to do this job adequately. Cuts are
being made, at every turn, in such a way that the quality
of the education offered is reduced almost to the
vanishing point.
This is the way it works. I have to make an initial
decision about a text book: will I use a text, or will I
assign materials through the Reserve Reading Room?
My best judgement is that there is no adequate text book
in the area of public opinion. If I decide for a text,
students will have to work through materials that are out
of date, organized in a poor manner, poorly selected and
sometimes downright wrong. I will have to teach from a
book I do not like, and—inevitably—much of what I say
in class will be critical of the text which students have
had to buy. Class will be less exciting, more frustrating,
and duller.
If I decide for the Reserve Reading Room, as I have
in the Past, students will have to cope with the in
convenience that involves (limited loan periods, and
competition with other students for materials), but at
least the content of what they read will be better than
otherwise. In past years, when the options are presented
to them, students have always opted for these in
conveniences; after all. good students want to spend
their time reading good materials.
This year, the funds for the Reserve Room have
been slashed. In order to do the best with what little they
have been given, they can only:
1. Xerox one copy of each item (The class in question
normally has about 60 students in it).
2. Xerox no more than twenty pages per item (Some
of the most important materials are longer than this.
What should I do? Give students the beginning, the
middle, the end?)
3. Use the books presently in stock; they cannot
purchase any new books for the Reserve Room.
In addition, they do not have the staff to search out
materials not already on their shelves. Professors must
get these for themselves. But (again because of the
budget cuts—this time in the Office of Academic Ad
vising) professors must now spend the week prior to
classes advising undergraduates about their careers.
Either I advise students or I help out the Reserve Room
with books for my course. I have resolved the latter
problem by taking my own copies in for them to Xerox; I
would like to put them on reserve, but after they are read
by 60 students they would be worthless for next year’s
students, quite apart from my own use.
The situation, as it stands, is simply this: 60 students
must compete for one copy of each assigned item. The
answer, of course, is to have fewer students in each
class. But the Administration has explicitly urged
professors not to do this; we must “minimize closure of
courses to enrollments" since the budget of the
university depends on enrollments and students who are
not satisfied are likely to drop out.
Certainly fewer students are enrolling at the
I'niversity than in past years. One of the major
reasons— as we know from endless studies, and from the
mouths of our own students—is that what they learn is
"irrelevant;" they are no longer excited by what they
are expected to learn, and the manner in which they are
expected to learn it. Y’et here we are forced into teaching
practices that can only make things duller, still more
irrelevant, and more frustrating. The logic of the
downward spiral is tragic: as funds are cut, the quality
of the educational experience declines; as quality
declines students (rightly, in my opinion) retreat from
an institution they label “irrelevant;” as students
retreat, available funds become smaller still . . . and so
things continue. The process is accelerated by the exit of
professors most concerned with the quality of the in
stitution in which they work. These are usually the
professors most able to excite students.
Who is to blame? Certainly not the Library which
must work with what it is given. Perhaps not even the
State Government that has to work within the limits
imposed by the voters. Perhaps it is pointless to abuse
the voters. But we can criticise the university itself for
allocative decisions which not only royally screw the
students, but which are in the long run (and that is the
short run now) suicidal for the university itself.
What can an individual professor do? Nothing much
more than yell.
Letters
Come on Charlie
One of the biggest problems in our
governmental system is trust in the per
sonalities in power. The level of faith is
diminished when politicos speak out of
both sides of their mouths. Holding this
ideal as high as I do caused me to become
concerned when I read some of Candidate
Porter’s campaign literature.
Here in Eugene at the DemoForum of
May 18th Mr. Porter said “when someone
comes up with a practical way to control
guns I'll be listening.” He continued on
saying, “handguns are a sick symbol of
internal virility.”
In literature passed out on campus
during registration Porter talks about the
guns (handguns and rifles) which he
personally possesses and says ““eon
liscation of guns is one of the first acts of
totalitarian regimes.” He sheds a negative
light on Dellenback even being willing to
listen to the arguments of those who favor
gun control. Then he closes by saying that
he will “vigorously oppose gun control
legislation as a member of Congress.”
Political opportunism is really out of
control enough in today’s politics.
Come on Charlie, what’s the deal?
Mike Marsh
ASUO Senator
Sock-llop Reality
Your editorial, “Turning back the
campus clock” (September 25) was a fine,
fine piece of work—the best editorial I’ve
read anywhere for a long time.
But why? Why are students par
ticipating in a “perverse exercise in
academic nostalgia”? It is fun. It is
secure. It is escape. Escape from the
misery, the anguish, the suffering which
threatens to tear us all apart.
If one is white, American, and affluent
ue. it one is in college), it is easier and
more satisfying to become wrapped up in a
football game, to be overcome by ex
citement at a sock-hop, or to withdraw into
a drugged or boozed euphoria than it is to
lace up to trying to do something
meaningful about murderous and racist
politicians, about political and economic
inequality, or about the incessant
destruction of our social and physical
environments.
David Sonnenfeld
Independent Studies
Melodramatic
While reading the Student Government
section of the Oregon Daily Emerald
orientation edition we were surprised to
learn that a “showdown looms between
Senate. Program Directors”. It would not
be wise for ODE readers to take this
melodramatic story seriously. What is
“looming" is the development of a fiscal
procedure to provide for a previously
unanticipated situation. With all of the
things we have to do this year we won't
have time for internal squabbling.
Problems come to light in the ASUO to be
solved, not to be used as a basis for power
struggles. As students we are all in this
mess together, and quite a mess it is.
Through the ASUO the students of this
University will have input this year to the
State legislature, the State Board, and the
University Administration. In the midst of
the present financial crisis and “relevancy
crisis" it would be silly for the ASUO to
become a house divided.
Tim Travis
ASUO Chief Administrative Officer
ASUO Senate
Daxid Novick
Cliff Zukin
President
President Pro Tern
ASUO Senate
1
'GOLLY GEE, I KNOW I SAID I WOULD GLADLY DIE IN COMBAT TO SAVE THE THIEU REGIME,
BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS . . . '