— Editorial
Wasting their collective time
One must observe the ASUO Senate
with increasing amazement.
How can a body of (supposedly) in
telligent, capable and mature University
students justify wasting their collective
time on such incredible pseudo-political
bickerings?
There is work to be done on this
campus—important work aimed at im
proving the quality of education and the
academic environment. But to listen to the
ASUO’s sandbox politicians one would
think theoverridingconcernof the group is
the election of a senate president and the
“stacking” of senate committees.
What purpose such goings on serve
eludes us. One thing is for certain, the
interests of the student body are not
served.
To be sure the power of the senate is
limited. Most visible of its functions is the
allocation of student incidental fees, about
$900,000 annually. But much of that money
is already allocated through guidelines
established by the State Board of Higher
Education and President Robert Clark.
The remainder can be divided up by the
Senate, but only so long as it follows
unofficial but strictly observed
precedents. In many ways the task is an
empty charade.
Significantly, before the current
Oregon legislative session ends even the
power to allocate may be revoked, or
strictly limited.
Outside of money, there is little the
senate can deal with. Occasional moral
pronouncements on war, peace, day care
and equal rights serve to break the
monotony, but accomplish little else.
Given even these restrictions, a
handful of senators do manage to ac-.
complish something.
The rest, apparently so taken with
themselves and their titles enjoy playing
games during regular senate meetings.
Who knows what they do the rest of the
time.
Veteran ASUO senate watchers, and
there are a few, admit the situation has
always been thus. A generally powerless
body unable to derive satisfaction from
real work must sublimate with make
believe.
Clearly, if the senate is to evolve into a
meaningful campus institution it will have
to gain respectable power to effect change
in the quality of education at the univer
sity. That is the issue that counts for
students.
The monopoly on educational in
novation currently held by the faculty and
administration must be broken. But the
senate has not pressured for that kind of
change, more concerned as it is with its
own internal squabbles.
The legislature may soon consider a
higher education governance bill which
would open the door to equal student
faculty control of state system schools.
That bill may well open for the senate
doors it has been unwilling to try on its
own. It brings to mind the possibility of a
joint student-faculty senate and that isn’t a
bad idea.
A real grievance problem
By TIM TRAVIS
Editor's Note: Tim Travis is an ASUO
executive assistant.
Although I hold an appointed position in
the ASUO, and am therefore an “official”
of student government, I retain my right to
freedom of expression. It would be a
mistake for anyone to assume that the
opinions I express are necessarily those of
the ASUO or anyone else in it.
There is a real problem on this campus
with grievance procedures. Academic and
administrative grievances are so much a
part of a student’s life here that most of us
quickly adjust to them. Unfortunately, we
also adjust quickly to the idea that nothing
can be done about our grievances.
For most grievances there simply is no
procedure, other than taking the matter up
again with the person or agency against
whom the student has a complaint. Since
this is usually not a very satisfactory
course of action most students choose to
forget about their grievances.
Those few grievance channels that do
exist are not made very widely known.
These existing channels are so fraught
with procedural complication and so
biased toward the interests of faculty and
administration that most students do not
consider them to be of any value.
Knowing, too, that both the faculty and
administration will “bat last”, most
students would rather not have their
grievances brought out into the open. Most
students would, understandably, rather
suffer in silence than see their grades
suffer, their chances for a letter of
recommendation destroyed, or their
financial aid cancelled.
And while it may be possible to argue
that “nothing like that would happen”,
most students seem to think that if they
rock the boat they will pay dues.
A recent situation illustrates this
clearly, and shows the inability of the
University to deal with grievances of
students in a satisfactory manner.
Oregon Daily Emerald
Near the end of last term we in ASUO
received some complaints about the way a
certain tenured faculty member was
conducting his class. We asked some other
class members and they agreed sub
stantially with the complaints we heard.
So, we took the matter over to President
Clark. He advised us that the students
should take their complaint to the
Academic Grievance Committee, where il
would be heard, investigated and proper
action would be taken.
Although we knew that this Committee
had never before met or done any business
we were confident that the situation would
be resolved fairly. A short time after our
meeting with President Clark we were
advised not to say anything about this
matter to the press, as we would likely be
sued. That is where matters stood at the
end of last term.
Over Christmas vacation the students
lost interest in pursuing their complaint.
Although they give various reasons for
changing their minds, these generally
come down to fear of reprisal. They are
afraid that if they complain about this
instructor his colleagues will destroy their
academic careers through the grading and
letter of recommendation system. It is not
difficult to understand their fear, or to
sympathize with them.
So the matter must be closed. The
problem is not resolved, but the matter is
closed. There is a real problem on this
camdus with erievance procedures.
'A SHIELD! A CHAIR! A GARBAGE CAN LID! ANYTHING!*
*