Oregon daily emerald., February 28, 1973, Page 4, Image 4

Commentary
True student power
By David Sonnenfeld
Editor's note: Sonnenfeld is a junior in
independent study at the University and
one of the creators of the new form of
ASUO legislative governance.
We now see the true nature of student
“power” at the University: To whom do
student leaders turn to resolve the dispute
over the validity of the ASUO Senate’s
existence? None other than University
President Robert Clark.
Students should realize that their
“power” over incidental fee allocation is
also at the will of, and subject to approval
and modification by, President Clark and
his superiors the State Board of Higher
Education.
And one might note the “power”
students have over substantive matters
(ie. curriculum, grading, graduation
requirements, faculty promotion and
tenure) at the University: they (students)
sit, in the minority, on committees ad
visory to the general faculty.
Squabbling over crumbs
As in the great majority of industries in
this “corporate industrial state," the
consumers (students) are bequested only
enough “power” to co-opt their leaders
and to keep them (students) squabbling
over what crumbs (of “power”) there are.
What is clear is that students do not have
power. What is not clear, at least to this
writer, is exactly who does have power at
the University. To the degree that the
University’s Charter is still recognized as
legitimate by the State and the State
Board, the faculty does have power over
curriculum, grading, and graduation
requirements, at least subject to the ap
proval of the State Board. The University
President certainly has some power over
the University budget: not the net amount,
but the distribution. And it is the State
Board, apparently, who has final say over
most everything, including the budget and
promotion and tenure.
Clark has little power
But the above is not a complete picture;
there is power other than policy-making
power. President Clark in actuality has
little, if any, power over the distribution of
monies at the University. For there is the
tremendous conservatizing power of the
(stagnant) organizational structure of the,
University, aided by the power of
“tradition.”
The University cannot be responsive to
consumer demand as long as financial, as
well as personal, resources are locked in
(via tenure ana traaition) to tne teuaai
departmental and college structure. For
example, rather than put more resources
into programs in the creative arts, for
which there have been waiting lists of
hundreds each term for years, the
University (and Oregon taxpayers) not
only subsidizes, but (through graduation
requirements) creates an artificial
demand for programs for which there is
less demand (ie. physical education,
English, history, some of the sciences).
Power also . resides in the State
Legislature. It is they who raise, allocate,
and distribute state monies. It is also they
who can, if they desire, establish state
policy in schooling matters, including
higher schooling. To date the State
Legislature, however, has been but
another conservatizing influence: by
putting a financial “crunch” on the State
System of Higher Education, while at the
same time refusing to alter the
organization of the State System, they
have not only increased everyone’s
anxiety, but have further imbedded
rigidity into the System.
Power of disruption
A third type of power extant, though
usually dormant, at the University needs
little explication: the power of disruption.
Both students and faculty members have
this power. Students, as consumers, may,
potentially anyway, refuse to consume (ie.
may boycott) schooling, or may otherwise
interfere with its delivery. Faculty
members, as workers, may refuse to
produce (ie. may strike), or may other
wise interfere with the production of
schooling. Either students or faculty
members, by disrupting “business as
usual” may indirectly further affect the
University by giving the University such a
poor public image that students will no
longer wish to study here, that teachers
will no longer wish to work here, that the
legislature will no longer wish to send
money here.
So where are we? What will change the
distribution of power at the University so
that we, as students and consumers, have
more control over the nature of the
product which we consume? In my
analysis, the only hope for meaningful
change (both change in substance and
change in governance) lies in the oc
currence of one or a combination of the
following events:
• The Voluntary Redistribution of
Power on the Part of the Faculty. If the
faculty were willing to open up its decision
making process to include and to empower
students, this would certainly move us in
the suggested direction. It is questionable,
though, how realistic this alternative is; at
best, the faculty might be willing to
gradually involve students in their
processes, as is happening in a number of
individual departments.
• A Change in University Leadership.
One of the reasons that President Clark
has no real power is due to his tenure in
office. If a new, and aggressive person
replaced Clark as president, she or he
would have at least a temporary op
portunity to “establish her or his style” —
ie. to drastically restructure the
University while “settling in.” It is
unlikely, however, that such a person will
ever be selected by the Board: it is
probably in their interests to have an
administrator as powerless and as
unaggressive as Clark.
• Decided Action on the Part of the
Legislature. The Legislature certainly has
a great amount of potential power to
change the way the University operates.
Again, it is another question as to whether
the Legislature will ever use any of its
power.
• The Availability of an Extremely
Large Amount of External Funds. Change
at the University could occur if a private
or governmental organization decided to
make available to the University funds for
“innovation” or organizational “self
renewal.” In fact, this is how the School of
Community Service and Public Affairs
was initiated. Some possibilities of ob
taining external funds for such purposes
exist in the Fund for the Improvement of
Post-Secondary Education (FDPSE) in the
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. With a budget for FY 1973 of
$10,000,000, FIPSE is one of the few new
education programs left intact by the
Nixon Administration. (A group, chaired
by Bob Albrecht, Assistant Dean of Liberal
Arts, is presently trying to put together a
proposal to FIPSE.)
• The Disruption of “Business as
Usual” by Students. If students, even 200
of them, were to do something as drastic
as to boycott the University for a term, the
University would be jolted out of “business
as usual” and might (or might not) be
more willing than at present to negotiate
student demands. (Another potential
action might be the disruption of faculty
and-or University governing processes —
the University would be forced to either
negotiate or to call in the police in order to
carry on “business as usual.” I suspect
they would do the latter.)
r me w&uf
for Mor iserr/oe
AU?W£ WITH
people.
AfOP r HflTff MV
S6LFFOfi w
kw of people
r cd eer
WITH- //
Afjp r MB MV
SftF FOR SAY/C6
THHJfiS I £WT
M£FAR>.
am? r me my
sap roe mot
,SAY(tJ6 WHAT
I 170 M6AU.
AMP r HAT? Mv
saf BR PRHJ0IJ6
amp r espsanw
\m h'seifum
im war neiwww&
/T/
I
J»
m MH0OI Fur
ike eeasojs i
HATE MV*5Eif
r /
7H£YAU. S6EM
SO ftTTV AWP
FOOUSH Art?
IfJAPESjyATE
✓ /
THAT r KWOJ I'M
tx> CObMSWT To
0&UTO IMTROe
fiEASoos x HATE
Because ip
kbauy me
WSO.F.
Gnnfttfaifc.
^ Z-25~