Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 13, 1976)
-editorial Tyler again The top two finalists in the ASUO primary election for the Incidental Fee Committee (IFC), David Tyler and David Parr, will again face each other in the ASUO general elec tion this week. In the primary race the Emerald endorsed Tyler. He still remains the more qualified candidate. Our endorsement of Tyler is based on his perceptive analysis of several shortcomings in the way the IFC has operated this year. Tyler is upset and justly so, considering the IFC's decision to drop the appeals process for pro gram budgets. Because of this decision, the only hope a program has of getting the IFC’s budget recommendation for the program changed is for the ASUO Executive to veto the IFC’s recommendation. Tyler also takes exception to a change in the IFC’s procedural rules. Under the new procedure the IFC chairer is allowed, at the chairer’s discretion, to solicit a member s vote by telephone when the committee has less than a quorum. We feel, as does Tyler, that members who can't attend the meetings should not be allowed to vote. Another procedural rule that he objects to is the method for removing a member from the committee. The criteria for removal is so vague that conceivably a member could be removed for petty, personal reasons. Tyler is determined to insure that programs funded by the IFC develop their full potential. One reason that this potential is sometimes not fully realized is a lack of com munications between the program and the student body. He would encourage programs to include line items for funds to open up lines of communication between the program and the students. He would also encourage the IFC to set aside enough money in its own budget to pub licize the programs it funds. When evaluating program budgets, Tyler would insist that the committee look at the program’s past performance as well as its future plans and goals. He does not advocate, however, that the IFC tamper with the internal policy and operation of a program unless the program is grossly neg ligent in living up to the goals for which it was originally funded. Tyler, an economics major in the Honors College, is aggressive, articulate and well-informed. His knowledge of the committee’s past performance and his hopes for its future direction also speak well of his candidacy. His elec tion to the IFC would add an assertive, program-oriented voice to the committee. L_J Letters Story corrected Concerning, the Emerald's recent artide about KASH, there are several mistakes that I feel should be corrected. First, the article mentions that our aU news and information for mat is not yet three weeks old. This is a trivial mistake, but it indi cates to me that your reporter was not paying dose attention when she interviewed me. KASH switched to the all news format last March 22, 1976. The artide mentions that we feature NBC news. This is not cor rect. KASH subscribes to the News and Information Service (NIS). NIS is a subsidiary of NBC. There is no duplication of pro gramming, announcers or fea tures on NIS and NBC news. They are separate, distind services. The artide further implies that KASH will broadcast the Olympic Games. Of course NIS will fea ture extensive, in-depth coverage of the games, but this is not the same thing as carrying the games in their entirety. I point out these mistakes be cause other media and broadcast outlets in our area may be carrying portions of the Olympic games and NBC news is carried by another local radio station. Since the artide was based on an inter view with me, I do not want other area broadcasters to think that I'm making false claims about our programming. Finally, the article says that KASH expects a smaller share of the audience than competing sta tions. This is simply not true. I never made such a statement. Programmers at any commencal broadcast station always strive for the largest share of the listening audience. Your reporter must have been confused when I ex plained that, histohcaly, all news stations tend to show up in the rating books with a “cume” or cumulative audience, that is dis proportionately large in compari son with their average share. I do appreciate the Emerald’s interest in our new format. All of us at KASH are very pleased with the response from the community thus far, and are proud to be able to bring complete and in-depth news and information to the area. John Etheredge operations manager Editor's note: The Emerald appreciates these errors being brought to our attention. The “mis takes" Mr. Etheredge refers to crept into the story somewhere between the original copy which did not contain these errors and the rewritten version which went to the printer. Last minute help As coordinators for the 1976 Mock Democratic Convention we have been working throughout the school year in an attempt to or ganize a realistic simulation of a national convention. It has proven to be quite a task, and some as pects of the national convention -opinion Controlling tuition levels Year after year students in higher education are hit with tuition increases. This, combined with the problem of insufficient financial aid, threatens to deprive persons of access to higher education. It is the mission of a responsible, well-run, student association to work to alleviate these problems. We as students have good reason to be un happy with the way tuition has been rising. Even in inflationary times the spiraling cost of tuition stands out, rising 210 per cent in the last ten years. In the past, the Department of Higher Education has proposed budgets to the Legislature — budgets including increased costs due to rising salaries, increased staff, and general inflation. In an effort to placate students and enlist their sup port for the budget at the Legislature, the State Board of Higher Education has always promised no tuition increase. Students have naturally gone along with the board in presenting a united front to the Legislature on behalf of the proposed budget. The problem is, however, that this tactic has never worked. Historically, resident undergraduate tui tion has been set at a level to be a certain propor tion of the total cost of instruction — roughly 25 per cent. This philosophy, in conjunction with pressure for state funding of other worthy pro grams, has meant approval, in substantial part, of the budget, an important exception being that the state share has been reduced with the student burden increased. In April, the State Board's Committee on Fi nance half-heartedly decided to once again come up with an increased budget which provided for no increase in tuition, with increased expenses to be covered by state funds. Once again, it looks as though students may fall into the trap of aligning themselves too closely with higher education offi cials with regard to tuition and the State System budget. The time has come for students to take a new approach. As consumers we should play an ac tive role in seeking the best possible education for the lowest possible cost To achieve this, we must eliminate unwarranted costs from the higher edu cation budget and work for a lowering of the per centage paid by students. To eliminate unwarranted costs, we will have to scrutinize the budget and ask tough questions. Is it wise to offer degree-granting programs in some fields at more than one campus, or can we save money by eliminating costly duplication? For the next academic year, faculty members will be given an average of a 10 per cent increase in salary, coming on the heels of an increase in excess of 13 per cent for the present year. Can we justify giving such extensive increases to faculty members who are already getting more than V $20,000 per year while teaching no more than two classes, with the cost-of-living rising less than 6 per cent annually? Couldn't students get a better education at less cost if we put more emphasis on instruction over research? Is it justified for the State System to continue its expensive construc tion program at a time of stable enrollment and short supply of money? By working to lower the percentage of the budget covered by tuition, students can for once be a truly effective party in the establishment of future tuition levels. It can be expected that legis lators will be receptive to student concerns about getting the most out of their tuition dollars. Any costs must be justifiable in terms of the education which will accrue to students. We as students can make our case most effec tively by responsibly arguing for both cutting un necessary costs and altering the tuition proportion of the budget. In addition, we ought to explore ways of establishing tuition rates independently of the total cost of instruction. For example, we may find it productive to argue that faculty salary in creases be separated from the budget. This would have the benefit of not pitting students against faculty in the fight for scarce dollars. Much of what we have said about the higher education budget has been in terms of looking to ways of minimizing costs. Students should also be in the position of working to kind programs which are in the student interest. This weighing by students of where the money should go — using judgment independent of board officials — is en tirely new and represents the realization that we constitute a separate and distinct interest and must arrive at positions based on our own analysis. For too long students have found them selves in the position of aligning themselves com pletely either with faculty members or adminis trators when it comes to the higher education budget. Now s the time for independent action as a separate and distinct third party. By carefully studying the facts of the student financial issues of keeping tuition down and en suring adequate funding of financial axis, and then working aggressively to achieve these ends in the Legislature, the ASUO as the advocate for student concerns wifl be able to protect all stu dents. Complete and successful action on behalf of students requires an experienced and know ledgeable, competent and committed, hard work ing and independently active ASUO Executive. Jim Davis candidate, ASUO pres. Mark Cogan ASUO admin, assistant / _ we found impossible to simulate. In some of our endeavors we have been successful, and in others, we have not However, we are re ceiving some last minute assis tance in our efforts. The Re volutionary Student Brigade is planning to form a picket line and stage a raly on Friday night at Mac Court, the site of our conven tion. We are very pleased to learn of this, and since it makes our convention a more realistic simu lation we encourage attendance. However, we deeply regret that those students outside Mac Court will not be able to receive any credits for their efforts, as those inside Mac Court are receiving. Penny Roberts pol. sci., sr. and five co-signers Back into it I am quite concerned about the level to which the ASUO presiden tial contest has dropped. I am the first to admit that Davis has made mistakes and enemies this year, but none of the letters blasting him gave facts or real incidents except for one campaign violation that even the Elections Court admitted was petty. I think back nostalgically to the Liberty administration whose slogan was "out of the sandbox." This campaign has dragged the ASUO back into it. The integrity and creekbi Sty of either candidate is in jeopardy for next year as a result of divisive and irresponsible political slurs. Serious issues face the stu dents next year, but debate has centered only on personality and image. Davis has been painted as a “more of the same” candidate as if that were bad, even though this year's executive has been rated first in the nation by the Na tional Student Association due to innovation and probing into new areas of student interest and power. I have no personal allegiance with any Executive staff member but I do support their issues. Davis has made his stand clear; Oliver has not been as clear. I urge pub lic debates between the candi dates so the serious issues can be raised, and I urge voters to base their choices on the issues, not on rhetoric or image. Dan Gamer pol. sci., sr. ASUO admin, assistant I urge As a stop-Carter movement seems to be gathering momen tum, I caution all Mock D-N-C voters to use the practical ap proach when balloting for presi dent. The anybody-but-Carter ap proach is impractical as would a Humphrey draft be. In reality, Humphrey s health and illegal contributions would be liabilities in the November election. / I personally favor Moms Udall, but would be willing to support him for V.P. should Carter garner enough votes to take the nomina tion on the first or second ballots. What our party needs is a candi date who has won the nomination through tt>e primary system and state conventions. This would avoid the bitterness which results from a brokered convention in the infamous smoke-filled room. We need not repeat 1968 nor 1972. Last Friday, Washington and Lee in Lexington, Virginia held a Mock D-N-C. The school, with a nine-out-of-ten record for picking the actual presidential nominee, gained national attention by nominating Jimmy Carter on the second ballot. In short, I urge a practical ap proach in our Mock D-N-C to wards unity of the party. This could take the form of uncommit ted delegates supporting the Democratic frontrunner, of those committed to favorite sons or long-shots similarly changing their votes for the second ballot or of those committed to the second place candidate compromising for a V.P. slot on the ticket. In any case, the nomination must occur no later than the second ballot if we are to bring it out of the smoke-filled room and into the hands of the American people. Barry Hood Chairperson, New Jersey UO 1976 Mock Democratic Convention
