Oregon daily emerald., March 12, 1976, Page 9, Image 9

Boyd views conflicts as personality clashes
Editor's Note: This storv. the final in a series
examininq Pres. William Boyd, looks at some of the
conflicts tins faced at this University and gives
so ne of his reasons behind his actions
By CHRIS JUPP
and PATTY FARRELL
Of the Emerald
... .It seems to me strangely unbecoming for either
the Emerald or the ASUO to suggest that the poor
student at the University of Oregon is somehow
disfranchised by a new, authoritarian president. It’s
simply not true. — William Boyd
The abruptness of many of University Pres.
William Boyd’s actions in the last seven months
have indeed convinced many students that the
University is now in the hands of an “authoritarian
president."
And students, minorities, and some faculty and
administrators are objecting not only to Boyd’s
abruptness, but to the effects of the actions
themselves. Many feel these decisions have
disfranchised some students.
Although Boyd’s actions have been unpopular
and abrupt, he thinks that they are the best way for
the University to achieve the goals which he has set.
Boyd defends his decisions with arguments
which are based firmly in his conception of how the
University should be run. But because he often
announces decisions without fully explaining his
reasoning, Boyd leaves the feeling that he acts
without any valid basis at all.
Minorities outraged over Boyd’s
reorganization of the minority program are one
group who have heard all of Boyd's reasons for his
decisions, but they disagree so strongly with hi3
methods and his rationale that the controversy
remains about one of the hottest issues on campus.
Boyd had only been president for six weeks
when he reorganized the Educational Opportunities
Services (EOS) into trie Academic Opportunities
Program (AOP). Decentralizing the program, he
reshuffled most of its facets into different de
partments within the University. At the same time,
he eliminated the four cultural centers on campus,
offering nothing in his new program to replace
them.
While the minorities agreea tnat tub was
doing a substandard job, they feel that Boyd’s AOP
is even more of an atrocity.
Six months later, Boyd still claims that
"Minority students were served well by my action. I
give minority programs a high priority, and I feel
that the EOS program was a scandal.”
He calls his new program a needed "shift in
emphasis" toward the academic development of
disadvantaged students.
But the most controversial aspect of Boyd's
reorganization was the methods used. Many feel
that he acted too quickly in making his decisions,
and that he didn’t get adequate input from the
persons affected.
But Boyd doesn’t see it that way. “Frankly, I
don't know who else I should have talked to. I really
don't see anything wrong with the procedures that I
followed."
Boyd’s willingness to ignore criticism and to
make rapid decisions leaves adversaries feeling that
the president has little regard for their opinions. The
charge that Boyd ignores input from others is
compounded by strong personality conflicts bet
ween Boyd and ASUO Pres. Jim Bernau, his main
political opponent.
This conflict has left the two presidents
confused over each other’s positions on con
troversial issues. The confusion leads to strained
and frustrated communication, which has resulted
in nothing constructive coming out of the in
teraction.
Communication difficulties have intensified
two debates at this University: student access to
faculty evaluations and student governance of
McArthur Court.
When the General Faculty voted against the
ASUO proposal to draw up separate faculty-course
evaluations for publication purposes last December,
Boyd considered the matter of access to evaluations
settled. But Bernau felt that the faculty had not
specifically addressed the question of public access
to any evaluations, but had voted merely on whether
to draw up separate evaluations. Bernau also
contended that since the State Board of Higher
Education had left the final question of access to
evaluations up to the University presidents anyway,
that the ASUO should ask Boyd for the final answer
to their request for access.
Boyd answered Bernau by flatly refusing to
allow public disclosure of any evaluations, claiming
that that was the faculty’s intent. The conflict
erupted into a two-week battle of each president
insisting that he was right and the other wrong.
When the smoke finally cleared, Boyd and
Bernau had come up with a logical and agreeable
solution: to reframe the proposal, making it more
specific, and to take it back to the faculty.
Boyd argues that Bernau should never have
come to him with the question in the first place.
“It’s the simplest matter in the world to reframe
the question and resubmit it to the faculty,” says
Boyd. “Jim can do that because he’s student body
president. It’s always been an option from the very
beginning that could be pursued.”
Bernau says that Boyd’s initial response was
“typical” in that It was “arbitrary and didn’t allow
adequate input from interested parties.” He also
says that Boyd gave him the impression that his
decision was final and that the ASUO was allowed
no recourse. Bernau argues that Boyd should have
made him aware of all the options available.
An even worse breakdown in communication is
causing gross confusion concerning the ASUO’s
proposal to form a Mac Court governance board.
Boyd and Bernau still do not understand each
others’ definition of a governance board as opposed
to an advisory board.
In January the ASUO proposed the establish
ment of the governing board to Boyd and the
General Faculty. Under the ASUO plan, the board
would set and implement all policies. But like all of
the University’s governance boards, the Mac Court
board would be ultimately responsible to the
University president.
Boyd strongly opposed the plan at the General
Faculty meeting and by doing so effectively
squelched any debate of the issue. He said that
student governance of Mac Court was inap
propriate, and that the language of the proposal was
“dangerous."
In reply to Boyd’s action, Bernau said that the
proposed board was by definition advisory, not
governing, because the president would have
ultimate veto power. Boyd thought that Bernau
was changing the proposal from establishing a
governance board to establishing an advisory body,
which Boyd says would be “Totally appropriate and
can be done without my consent.” But anything that
"looks or smells like a governing board” to Boyd will
never get his approval, he says.
Bernau never rias naue mo
definition of an advisory board, and so the two sides
have still not been able to come to a solution.
The frequency of confrontation has hardened
Boyd and Bernau into inflexible opponents. Faculty
communication between the two has resulted in
misunderstandingss and increased polarization.
“Maybe we bring out the worst in each other,"
Boyd says. “I certainly consider the relationship to
be an unsuccessful one. I think that the ad
ministration has been badly served by lack of
success in dealing with the ASUO, and I think
similarly that the ASUO has not been well served by
their lack of success in dealing with me.”
“I’m trying in part simply to step aside and to
let other people who may have more adaptable
personalities deal with the ASUO,” Boyd says. He
suggests Vice President for Student Affairs Gerald
Bogen as a likely administrator who will begin
working more with the ASUO.
“I’m hoping that to the degree that it’s a per
sonality conflict, I can solve it by backing away from
it,” says Boyd.
Bernau disagrees that the problems between
the two presidents are due completely to a per
sonality conflict. "As a matter of fact, I like the
guy,” he says.
Bernau thinks that the problem is instead a
matter of conflicting ideologies. “We have two
different approaches to bettering the University. The
key difference is that the ASUO feels that ail
members of the University community should be
involved in the decision-making process.”
Co-governance within the University Senate
and General Faculty was “one of the most
significant victories students have won at an
American university,” he says. “It surprises me that
students still look to student government as op
posed to co-governance as the means of in
creasing involvement. Now when the student
government finds itself thwarted in something, it
looks like the student body is somehow thwarted.
But students still have the whole co-governance
system to use."
Students may still find that co-governance is
the best way to increase involvement. But since the
conception of the system in Novemberof 1974, the
students' part in co-governance has been inef
fective. Members of the Student University Affairs
Board (SUAB) belong to the University Senate, and
have full voting riahts in the General Faculty.
But the student body does not seem to realize the power and
importance of the SUAB; voter turnout has been the lowest for those
positions, and sometimes positions cannot even be filled.
Boyd would naturally encourage students to turn to the SUAB;
the students are in close governing contact with the faculty, and it is
the faculty’s opinion which Boyd feels is most important. Boyd
believes that students for the most part are too inexperienced to haw
the amount of say in decision-making that the ASUO would like to
see.
In student participation on tenure and grievance committees, for
instance, Boyd believes that the student role should be only advisory.
But the student involvement in tenure and grievance procedures
has barely surfaced as an issue yet. Boyd will be making decisions on
the proposals sometime this year. He also has a long fight ahead of
him when the ASUO comes forth again with their EMU tavern proposal
— an idea he has fought since he first heard of it.
No one is ever sure how William Boya win react to eacn problem
that confronts him. But one thing is certain: unless compromise can
replace conflict between Boyd and his adversaries, the University
faces a future marked with more questions than answers.
ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION MAJORS
Group Advising Session
Monday, March 15, 1976
4:00 P.M. Room 151 Education
An open meeting for all elementary education majors to
discuss program requirements and plans for spring
term registration
Thinking about what
classes to take this
Spring?
not
try ESCAPE?
ESCAPE volunteers are needed to work in local schools and
community service agencies.
1-5 CSPA/CI upper division credits.
For more information, contact ESCAPE, 327 EMU, 686-4351,
or sign up Spring term at Mac Court.
SUPERIOR AUTOMOTIVE is proud to an
WE EMPLOY nounce the acquisition of
MECHANICS
CERTIFIED BY
let us show you
their credentials
the SUN 940 Engine Per
formance Tester and the
Infra-red Exhaust Per
formance Analyzer.
FREE estimates
4 month-4,000 mile warrantee
Stop by and introduce your car to the best friends it ever
had and help make your spring break motoring hassle
free.
Superior Automotive
3816 E. Main St.
Springfield 746-6165