— editorial -
AD should show concern for students
“I don't give a damn about the contract.
-Assistant Athletic Director Mel Krause in
a conversation with IFC Chairer Jane Aiken
"We re all working toward the same goal.
-Athletic Director Norv Ritchey
Year after year, the University students have
been paying for the negligence of the Athletic De
partment (AD).
But this year if the ASUO executive and the
Incidental Fee Committee (IFC) stick to their guns,
there is hope that the situation might change.
A dose look at the situation during the past year
reveals that the AD has been taking advantage of the
students.
The AD contracted with the IFC last year to provide
4,000 student seats in Mac Court. Yet there never
have been that many. A provision of the contract
allows 200 athletes admitted without charge and the
band (another 50 to 60 seats) to sit in the student
section. The expected “no-show1’ rate for any one
game was supposed to leave adequate room for
everyone.
The 4,000 seats were calculated at a wiotrt or
151/2 inches each. Recently, however, Eugene's fire
marshall ruled that all seats must be 18% inches
wide. This means that there are only 3,775 seats
instead of 4,000. Subtract from that the seats for the
band and athletes and there are only 3,525 student
seats for 4,000 ticket holders. (The fire marshall has
a tacit understanding with the AD, however, that his
ruling will not be enforced for the remainder of the
season.)
With this kind of crowding is it any wonder that
Mac Court crowds have been rowdy?
And that’s not the whole problem. If any of the
student tickets remain unsold, the AD may sell them
to the general public at a cost of $2.50 each. Of this
money, the AD-IFC contract says that $1.25 goes to
the ASUO and $1.25 to the AD.
Yet the AD’s contract with the Pac-8 requires
that 50 percent of the gate go to the Pac-8.
IFC Chairer Jane Aiken has said that Odell
Wood, the AD’s business manaaer told her that the
AD would like to see $1.25 go to the Pac-8, $1 25 to
the AD. That leaves nothing for the students, it also
violates the contract.
When asked his intentions on this matter AD
Director Norv Ritchey told the Emerald “I couldn't
comment on that yet; we’re not that far into it." He did
indicate a desire to work out an agreement with the
IFC.
In other words, the AD would like to find some
way of making the students pay for its failure to keep
track of its business arrangements.
To add insult to injury, the AD oversold several
games, despite the fact that the AD-IFC contract
allows only the leftover student tickets to be sold to
the general public.
The rationale oenina inis was mai uuimy
Thanksgiving and Christmas vacations there would
be a greater number of no shows. Since the games
during those periods were not overly crowded, the
strategy apparently worked.
The point, however, is that the AD had no way of
knowing that it would. In effect, the AD risked an even
more crowded student section so it could rake in
more cash. On at least one occasion 600 to 700 extra
tickets were sold. The risk of having to sit in a
crowded student section was taken by students. Why
should the AD profit from subjecting students to that
risk?
The AD’s insensitivity to students is demon
strated by another incident. Earlier in the season, the
AD roped off part of the student section to provide
seating for halftime entertainers other than the band
of the visiting team. This meant even fewer student
Se3t When the IFC objected to this, the ropes were
removed, but the entertainers were still directed to
sit in the student section when they entered Mac
Court. Since Oregon athletes will provide halftime
entertainment for the rest of the season, this should
not be a problem any more. They already have 200
free seats.
The whole problem, according to Aiken, is that
the AD is “trying to get more dollars for less service.’
If anybody has to pay for the AD's mistakes, students
are the easiest group to hit. The AD has been doing a
nice job of that.
There are several things which must be done to
change this situation. The Emerald supports the fol
lowing actions, most of which have been suggested
by Aiken: . . .. ..
—The AD must be held to its signed contract If it
refuses to pay the $1.25 per ticket which it owes the
ASUO, the amount owed should be deducted either
from the spring installment of this year's IFC alloca
tion or from next year's. If this failed, then legal action
would insure the AD’s compliance.
—The IFC and ASUU snoura oemana me re
venue from the oversold tickets, again deducting the
amount if the AD refuses ___
—Next year's contract must assure a full 4,000
student seats. . . .
—The new contract should not discnmmate
against most students by giving 200 free seats to
At the AD’s budget hearing before the ASUO
executive Monday night, a new approach to funding
was revealed. The ASUO executive made dear that
the money it gives to the AD is not to be considered
as program support, but rather, as payment for an
entertainment service.
The AD asked for $165,000 a ten per cent • infla
tion" increase over last year’s $150,000 allocation.
The ASUO, however, only intends to provide
$138,000—one-fourth of the normal season ticket
price for 4,000 seats (or one-half of the normal stu
dent price).
On© ASUO
bureaucrat told the Emerald “If they
buffalo us, then we ll recommend no funding at all."
While such a move is unlikely because it would pro
voke a major fight with the administration, it remains
a possibility. There is a strong undercurrent of sup
port within the ASUO executive for cutting the AD off
without a cent if it is unwilling to negotiate an equita
ble agreement
Should colleges beco
havens for the elite?
By WILLIAM RASPBERRY
WASHINGTON — Americans aren't quite
sure what to do about education in general,
and higher education in particular.
One Key reason for this uncertainty is that
we are tom between two equally appealing
but mutually exclusive notions. The first is
that college is a reasonable means of train
ing a leadership cadre. The second is a
rejection of anything that smacks of elitism.
Instead of choosing between the two
ideas, we pretend that it is possible to abide
by both.
It’s fine to look to the college trained for
leadership, we tell ourselves, so long as we
are careful not to deny certain elements of
the population the opportunity for college
training.
At the beginning, this means only that we
shouldn’t exclude exceptionally bright peo
ple solely because they come from families
without wealth or status. Later, it means
that people of ordinary means should be
able to pursue higher education on the
same basis as those of wealth—which is to
say, anyone who wants to go to college
should have the right to go.
And finally, it means that all except
society’s cripples do in fact go to college.
This may be fine for the general educa
tional level of the society, but it renders
oollege worthless as a means for training a
leadership cadre. Indeed, a college dip
loma is hardly more valuable today than a
high school diploma was a generation or
two ago when it comes to gaining access to
the preferred jobs.
opinion
So now we look to the graduate and pro
fessional schools to produce our leaders.
But not for long. It will soon dawn on us how
hopelessly elitist it is to deny postgraduate
training to all but a handful of college
graduages. And when it does, we’ll move to
make grad school available to nearly
everybody who wants it — which if it is to
be the ticket to the good jobs, means nearly
everybody.
Well, is it such a bad thing that so many
'THESE PEOPLE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND MY DEEP CONCERN FOR THEIR WELFARE!'
people go to oollege now, and will soon be
going to graduate school?
The answer depends to a large degree
on what happens in the universities. The
trend isn’t promising.
As long as only a few of us went to col
lege, it was possible to make colleges a
reasonably efficient way of developing the
minds of those who were among the brigh
test and best to begin with. But send almost
everyone to college and result, admitted or
not, is the lowering of academic standards.
It may be that one reason college de
grees aren’t worth a lot more than high
school diplomas used to be worth is that
college students are not being taught that
much more than high school students used
to be taught. Maybe were just stretching
the same basic amount of education over
more and more years.
That isn’t universally true, of course
Some of the more prestigious ana selective
colleges have been able to cling to their
high academic standards — at least for a
while. But to look to those tough-minded
schools for the greater share of our leader
ship is to fall once again into the trap of
elitism: some colleges, and some college
graduates, are worth more than others.
If history is any guide, the academically
rigorous schools will yield to the pressure
and begin accepting students (and graduat
ing them) pretty much on the same basis as
old State U
Maybe all of this wouldn't matter very
much, except that it is so enormously ex
pensive. College tuition costs keep climb
ing until they will soon be out of reach for
most of us. That, of course, would be one
way of reducing college enrollments and
rendering college diplomas meaningful
again. But since that, too, is elitist, we ll
probably opt for having the government pay
for everybody’s college and graduate edu
cation, whicn we ii an pay for later through
inflation.
Universal college is costly in another
way. It increases the number of incomeless
years that most of us have to suffer through,
and for no useful purpose. That wouldn’t be
bad if people spent their time in college
learning things they wanted to learn. In fact,
most of us go to college in order to qualify
for the kind of jobs we'd like to have.
Meanwhile, the emergence of the college
diploma as the minimum qualification for
useful work has had the effect of rendenng
high school almost totally useless, except
as an entry requirement for college
Sooner or later we re going to have to
face up to the fact that equality of opportun
ity and inequality of results are not neces
sarily incompatible.
When we do, maybe we will be willing to
open the entry door to oollege wide enough
to give everyone a chance to try and at the
same time keep the exit door small enough
so that the whole thing is worth the effort
(C) 1975, The Washington Post
Emerald
letters
policy
The Emerald will accept and try to
print all letters containing fair com
ment on ideas and topics of concern
or interest to the University commun
ity. Because of space limitations, let
ters must be no more than 250
words-typed, thple-spaced, dated
and signed with the person's major
or discipline. Longer letters will be
shortened at the editor's discretion.
Longer opinion columns will be pub
lished whenever possible after being
submitted to the editorial page
editor. The limit on opinion columns
is 1,200 words, using the same for
mat as letters.
J