Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 5, 1973)
t Commentary Less than rich' AD interested in fair policy for students By BILL LANDERS Recent issues of the Emerald have earned criticisms of ticket policies of the athletic department relative to students One banner on a "news" story read. "AD nch off student tickets " Less than nch The truth is that the AD will over realize ticket income from students just as it will over-realize ticket income from outside sales It's what we call "having a good year ” Sometimes there are bad years An aggressive pre-season ticket campaign was waged for football and that helped Basketball has ignited great fan interest, both alumni and student and that helped Not one football game has been rained on this year That REALLY helps But not all years work out this way Budgets are drawn in the spnng and the projection of income becomes an exercise in crystal ball gazing What football games will catch rain’’ Will the team go through undefeated'7 What if a key player or two in basketball gets injured” All of these factors and more influence the estimate of revenues And the AD survives on its event income In a budget that is approaching two million dollars. $150,000 comes from incidental fee support and about $190,000 will come in contributions. Ail of the rest is gate receipts That means the incidental fee support is less than 8 per cent of the total AD budget And yet, even with this relatively small percentage of the total, we allocate almost half the seating in Mac Court to our students. If grubbing money was our style we would reduce the student seating and sell the tickets out at $4 a copy. Hie fact is, however, that the student interest has always been, and will continue to be. the No. 1 consideration of the AD in it^ ticket policies Four years ago the incidental fee contribution to the AD was $250,000 The students requested that this amount be reduced by $100,000 and that those students wishing to attend athletic events be required to pay for an athletic card Also, the ASUO directed the AD to be constantly on the alert to find ways of becoming more self-sufficient. Those policies are still operative A formula for establishing student ticket prices was instituted this year The concept is to chargestudentshalf of regular ticket prices. In football that price is $7 The student pays $2 to see a game and has contributed $1.50 through his incidental fee for a total of $3.50. Why was the football and basketball season ticket sold as a combination’’ The AD is responsible for nine sports programs and only two of those programs will ever make money. They earn, the financial load for the others If we were to fall short of our income budget, cuts would, necessarily, have to be made in all programs. For that reason, we felt the student willing to support ALL programs with his ticket purchase should have first con sideration If making money were our only goal we could cut out all programs that didn't carry their own weight. But we believe in a balanced program that gives the widest opportunity possible for the participation of students with various sports interests At $23, the student all-sports athletic pass is the best entertainment buy anywhere. Consider that in basketball alone the regular ticket is $52. The AD for years has been in strumental in acquiring athletic facilities that are used by all students fcr physical education and recreational purposes These facilities have been created from contributions of citizens who believe in the athletic program and they are used by the total University community. All are used year around, including Autzen Stadium. The student opinion poll sponsored by the State System of Higher Education last year gave solid evidence that students desire our University to pursue intercollegiate competition at ihe highest level and, further, they are willing to pay their share of the program The AD is always sensitive to the desires of students regarding ail of its policies—ticket pricing in particular We will continue to work with the ASUO in formulating policies that are fair to the student interests. Landers is the assistant director of athletics. Commentary Students question chances for co-governance success By TIM TRAVIS It would seem that students are not very interested in Co-governance, or even aware of it. How many know that a University Senate, comprised of students and faculty, is now being considered to replace the current system0 We mav soon be electing students to go into the faculty meetings and vote for us. Four or five years ago that idea would have excited many students. In fact, it did, when there was a strong interest among students in University reform. In at least ten departments there were student unions actively seeking to give students a voice in University decision making. Co-governance, which meant allowing students to vote in faculty meetings, was something many students wanted Un fortunately, at that time, the faculty wanted no part of it. We were told that we were too immature, irresponsible, lazy and selfish to know w'hat is good for us. Each year student interest declined a little more as time and again proposals for University reform, especially for giving students a voice in what their education will look like, met solid opposition from the vast majority of faculty members. Students began to believe that it was useless to talk about University reform, and were convinced that nothing would ever come of it. Most of the Departmental Student Unions disappeared and it looked as if the University would be safe forever from student opinion. But this ran counter to the times. While everywhere else the young were being enfranchized our faculty held out. However, while anti-student attitudes continued to prevail, faculty opinion was not static. Perhaps the beginning of the shift was too gradual to be perceived by frustrated students, but it has progressed to the point that Co-governance is being considered again. And this time members of the faculty and administration are as responsible as students for bringing it up. The reason for the change in faculty opinion is the respectable record that students have compiled serving in the various committee seats gained during the hay-day of the University reform movement President Clark also deserves credit, for he has not only consistently gone on record in favor of including students in decision making, he has also created many opportunities for par ticipation by appointing students to committees and commissions under his authority. Serving on these committees with students many faculty members have had their minds changed. While a few of the students who have served on these committees have been turkeys, most have been conscientious and competent. In fact, most of the problems with the Student Faculty Committee System stem from the fact that ASUO has never put enough time and energy into recruiting students to serve, and giving them background in formation to heighten their effectiveness. So, the chances that Co-governance will be implemented have never been better. And student interest has never been lower. In fact, some faculty members who still oppose it have said that because of the lack of student enthusiasm Co-govemance should not be established. However, it must be remembered that when masses of students were breaking down the doors to get in widespread enthusiasm was not considered a relevant criterion. The fact is that there are many students on campus who would participate in a Co governance system, but there are at least three reasons they are not jumping up and down over it right now. Few students know what is going on, first of all. This proposal was written by a student-faculty group during the summer, when few students were around to bear about it happening. No real effort has been lBtUaa,e DON'T THIN1<^ THEY BOUGHT THE PlSAPPEAPlUG TAPES made this Fall to make them aware of the proposal and its ramifications, although this is bginning to happen now. Then, too, many students associate Co governance with the ASUO and dismiss it as a waste of time and effort on that basis It has not been made sufficiently clear that the University Senate will have absolutely no connection with student government However, the main reason there has been so little response is that those students who^have heard of it and un derstand it do not believe that there is any chance that it will be adopted. Students have tried before to get this, more than once, and have always failed dismally Once students become aware of Co governance, understand its possibilities, and are persuaded that there is a chance for success there will be plenty of student interest. It is understandable that after being told “No” so many times, and so emphatically, that students are having trouble getting up for it again. Travis is a senior.
