Oregon daily emerald., January 08, 1973, Page 3, Image 3

Panel suggests ‘no-growth’
for University in 1970’s,
reviews 1964 guidelines
By CLAY EALS
Of the Emerald
PORTLAND (Special) -
Growth probably will not be a
byword for the University
through the 1970-80 decade.
Revised guidelines for the
University, which forecast no
“significant expansion” in the
1970’s, are currently being
considered by the State Board of
Higher Education.
The board’s academic affairs
committee reviewed such revised
guidelines Dec. 18 and recom
mended board approval
The board will consider ap
proval of the revised guidelines
for the University at the board’s
next meeting Jan. 22 here.
The bulk of the guidelines are
identical to those the board ap
proved for the University in 1964,
which are made up of 17 general
objectives.
The revisions in the guidelines
concern the University’s role in
the 1970’s.
Following are the basic
revisions:
“The board does not envision
any significant expansion in the
1970’s in the curricular
allocations given the University
of Oregon.
“The University is a mature,
well-developed institution with
substantial obligations to the
state growing out of the wide
ranging curricular allocations
given the University by the
board.
“The University’s primary
emphasis in the 1970’s will be in
carrying out its present assigned
missions in the State System (of
Higher Education).”
One exception to the “no
growth” philosophy expressed in
the guideline revisions is that, if
the University will be able to add
to its curriculum in the 1970’s, “it
appears likely” that additions
“will lie in the health service
____ »»
area.
The exception states that the
health service resources of the
University and Eugene will be
examined “in the board’s con
tinuing exploration” of how the
state system can serve Oregon’s
need for health service
preparation programs.
But, the exception adds that
such a reference to health service
“is not to be interpreted as an
intention on the part of the board .
. . to establish a second medical
school in the 1970’s.
“The board envisions no such
need.”
Discussion at the Dec. 18
academic affairs committee
meeting centered not on the
guideline revisions for the
University in the 1970’s, but on
the original guidelines passed in
1904.
The original guidelines are
made up of 17 general objectives,
which include providing
“educational opportunities of
high quality, within the
designated scope of the
University’s functions, to all who
can benefit from them.”
Other objectives include
maintaining teacher excellence,
preserving “an atmosphere of
freedom,” and providing “the
kind of professional education for
both undergraduate and
graduate students which will
enable them to render to a
rapidly changing society ef
fevuve service consistent with
high ethical standards.”
Also, the objectives include
providing “the opportunity for
the total development of the
student.”
Elizabeth Johnson, committee
chairer, said at the meeting that
she had several “reservations”
about the original guidelines.
She said that guidelines are too
vague and general, and should
“speak to the necessity for
relating (the University’s) ob
jectives and goals to the man
power needs of the students and
society.”
She asked, “If they (the
University and other schools in
the state system) have these
broad, all-encompassing, global
objectives, what do they do if a
student or somebody says,
“These are your goals and how
are doing this’?”
Johnson questioned the general
wording of “total development of
the student.”
State system Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs Miles
Romney told Johnson that the
guidelines say the University
should provide the “opportunity”
for the “total development of the
student,” and that the guidelines
do not “guarantee” it.
State system chancellor Roy
Lieuallen also said the guidelines
are merly intended to provide for
the University a broad basis on
which to operate.
jonn Mosser, Doara memoer
who does not sit on the committee
but attended the meeting, added,
“We really don’t know all that
much about how the educational
process works and why it works.
“It isn’t the academic grading
that’s doing it. Maybe it’s just
being there and rubbing elbows
with the intellectually alert.”
Because of this, “We can’t be
overly definitive in saying what
we are doing and why,” he said.
After the discussion ended, the
committee came to a consensus,
recommending approval of the
University guidelines, original
and revised.
But, Johnson said she wasn’t
completely satisfied. After the
committee came to a consensus,
she said, “Well, I’m still con
cerned with some of those
(guidelines) and are we per
forming mi them?”
The academic affairs com
mittee not only considered
guidelines for the University at
its Dec. 18 meeting, but for the
eight other schools in the state
system as well: the University
Dental School, Oregon State
University, Portland State
University, Southern Oregon
College, Oregon College of
Education, Eastern Oregon
College, the University Medical
School and Oregon Technical
Institute.
Guidelines for all nine schools
gained recommendations for
approval, except for the
University Medical School. The
committee determined that the
medical school guidelines
document needed redrafting
During the consideration of
OSU’s guidelines, committee
members determined that OSU
“ought not to look to the
development of graduate
programs in the humanities and
social sciences — now or in the
future.”
Adding such programs at OSU
would be “diversionary" to
OSU’s functions as ‘A “great”
land-grant, sea-grant university
in the state system, committee
members said.
OSU President Robert Mac
Vicar told the committee he
would like to see more sharing of
functions between the University
and OSU.
“We (OSU) do have some
opportunities where we hope we
can work with the University of
Oregon to have a whole program
without each institution feeling it
has to have a complete
program,” MacVicar said.
Discount
youth
fares
to end
The Easter and summer plans
of many University students to
travel home will be severely
affected by the elimination of
discount youth fares announced
Dec. 7 by the Civil Aeronautics
Board (CAB). The National
Student Lobby (NSL) and senior
citizen groups are seeking to
reverse the CAB decision through
Congressional action.
CAB voted 3-2 that domestic
youth fares are unjustly
discriminatory and should no
longer be permitted. The
decision implied that same fate
for international youth fares.
“The wolf is at the door,” said
NSL Executive Director Layton
Olson. “Although CAB has set no
specific date for terminating
youth fares pending a hearing
early in 1973 on the effect of such
a move, the discounts could very
well end as early as March.”
THE BOOK FAIR
USED BOOKS
TEXTS MAGS RECORDS
45 W. 7th Closed Sunday & Monday
House of Records
has moved to
258 East 13th
I still with low prices
and fine selection
$5.98 retail for
$3.25 and below
342-7975
| ASUO Cultural Forum
} presents
I LEO
KOTTKE
&
Sunnyland
Band
in concert
IWK&
Thursday, January 11
8 pm
EMU Ballroom
Tickets: $2.00
Sun Shop, Chrystalship,
EMU Main Desk