/-—editorial
Evaluation showdown
The final and most important vote in the long history
of the student course evaluation issue will take place
Thursday in the Oregon House of Representatives. The
legislators will vote on House Bill 2702, which would re
quire the release of tabulated information from the evalua
tion forms students fill out at the end of most University
courses.
The Oregon Student Lobby (OSL) prepared the bill
and pushed it through the House Education Committee.
The student lobbyists say they are optimistic about the
bill’s chances before the full house, but it’s going to take
yes votes from at least half a dozen undecided represen
tatives to make the bill law.
Specifically, HB 2702 would require the State Board
of Higher Education to formulate rules for the release of
tabulated course evaluation information. The bill would
oblige the State Board to develop the rules in consultation
with elected student officials. These requirements repres
ent a fair compromise between the rights of students and
the State Board’s responsibility toward the rights of fa
culty.
More important than the technical aspects of the bill,
however, is the validity of the idea that led to its prepara
tion: the idea that students need more information con
cerning courses and instructors. The best and most con
venient source of such information is the course evalua
tions. Everyone — students, faculty and administrators —
would benefit if students were allowed to use this informa
tion.
Students obviously have a lot to gain from HB 2702. On
the basis of the evaluation information students could de
cide whether or not a particular course or instructor suited
their needs. Students would register only for courses they
knew they would like — the element of risk would be
substantially reduced.
Faculty would benefit from student access to course
evaluations as much as anyone. It could be assumed that
the students who showed up on the first day of class really
wanted to be there. Faculty could expect an honest and
detailed critique of their teaching methods, classroom
demeanor and assignments at the end of each term. Stu
dents would take the evaluations seriously if they knew
that they were communicating their opinions to 16,000
other students.
The University administration might find a partial sol
ution to its underenrollment problems in HB 2702. Under
enrolled students generally begin the term with five or six
classes, then drop the one or two courses that turn out to
be turkeys. HB 2702 would change this situation to one
of more stable add/drop patterns.
The bill’s opponents feel that to release the forms
would somehow invade the privacy of faculty. But only
statistical tabulations of the evaluation information would
be released; the individual forms and subjective com
ments would remain secret.
Another objection is that students would come to ex
ercise some sort of tyranny over their instructors if enroll
ment were subject to the whim of student opinion. This
argument implies that students are not qualified to judge
their instructors. In fact, students alone are qualified to
judge teaching performance and could be expected to do
so fairly. The idea of student tyranny also assumes that all
students want the same thing from their courses or in
structors — that’s like saying voters all want the same
things from whomever they vote for.
Thursday’s vote in the House of Representatives will
be the last chance for a good idea to become public pol
icy. HB 2702 is a good idea because it would be useful to
all parties involved without costing very much. HB 2702 is
the last chance for students to obtain access to course
evaluation information because all other parties with the
power to grant student access have either failed to act
positively or have met proposals with refusal.
Any legislator who hasn’t decided to support HB
2702 should take a closer look at it. Students with an
interest in improving the quality of their educations should
contact their representatives before the Thursday vote
and urge them to support this important measure. The
ASUO and the OSL have information on which represen
tatives need persuasion. If HB 2702 is allowed to fail, it
will be a long time before students can organize support
for another measure of its kind. It’s now or the next thing
to never for student access to their own opinions; this
opportunity must not be allowed to pass.
v
Page 4
Letters
Males stereotyped
As I read Heather Mc
Clenaghan’s story, “Women’s
week to prove that women aren’t,”
I was stopped by the phrase, “...a
belly dancing lesson from a
feminist perspective (no leering
men allowed),” and began to
wonder if this meant men who leer
are not allowed, or that all men are
not allowed because they, each
and every one, leer.
To make a mountain out of a
molehill (or seek deeper meaning
in something that seems minor) I
then began to wonder if, in redefin
ing themselves, women rely on
stereotyped definitions of men,
such as ‘chauvanistic male,’ ‘sex
ist male,’ ‘oppressive male,' and
‘leering men.’
The point I want to make is that
prejudice is something we all must
deal with, within ourselves as well
as others, be it sexual, racial, re
ligious, national, political or cul
tural. All these forms of prejudice
are factors in the disunity of the
human race. We must seek libera
tion from our old disunifying at
titudes, not at the expense of each
other, but through mutual educa
tion and service. When the human
race has balanced its male and
female aspects, both socially and
individually and overcome all pre
judice, then both limbs of the
human race, the male and female,
will be equally strong in building
an ever advancing civilization.
Scott Stuart
Junior-Journalism
Confront socialism
I note with some amusement
that there is a program scheduled
Wednesday for the Women’s
Symposium titled “Socialist
Feminism.” (1 p.m. EMU Rm.
101) Since socialism is legalized
slavery and the women’s move
ment focuses on “liberation,” the
idea of “socialist feminism” is
completely non-defensible.
I have always been an ardent
feminist and defender of
capitalism, so I will be there to
hear what the misguided Barbara
Ehrenreich has to say about her
slave society. No doubt she will
espouse female dominated cen
tral planning instead of the male
dominated bureaucratic mess we
now have.
But since I’ve heard all the tired
old arguments of Marxist
economists (no wonder the
socialists changed their name —
nobody listens to them since Eng
land and New York faced bank
ruptcy taking their advice), as an
act of gratuitous kindness, I
hereby challenge Ehrenreich, or
any members of the New Ameri
can Movement/or the Revolutio
nary Student Brigade to an infor
mal debate at 4:00 the same day
in the same room on the subject,
Resolved: Socialism enslaves
women; capitalism liberates
them. And I invite any business
types or career women to come
help out.
If you’re as sick as I am of hear
ing anti-free enterprise myths,
you’ll be there to help pin the tail
on the donkeys.. .If they don't
show, I’ll give my scheduled re
marks on “Women as Leaders”
which socialists never discuss
because they don’t like leaders —
just followers.
Tonie Nathan
President— Association of
Libertarian Feminists
Legitimate needs
Being a person interested in
both entertainment and athletics,
I read with interest your editorial
“Bad news for night life.”
You write: “The Cultural Forum
argues convincingly the AD isn’t
interested in entertaining anyone,
it’s interested in making money.”
How is it that you can point an
accusatory finger at one segment
of campus life because they are
interested in “making money”
and in the next paragraph state:
“The Cultural Forum needs to
sponsor profitable big name en
tertainment events in Mac Court
as often as possible to pay for the
low-cost or free events in the
EMU Ballroom and other loca
tions.”
You said it yourself — both the
Athletic Department and the Cul
tural Forum need money! Is it
possible that both also have
legitimate needs such as minor
sports and low-cost or free
events?
Royce Saltzman
Professor of Music
-opinion
Support GTF union
The election for union representatives for graduate teaching fel
lows (GTFs) has been officially set for April 27th and 28th. In the
coming weeks the GTF-Federation will be raising issues of concern to
GTFs — the first being wages.
In 1969 our predecessor, the Graduate Student Employe s As
sociation, negotiated a contract with the University and established the
wage schedule which we are presently on. Since that time, however,
our wages have not kept up with the cost of living. To illustrate the
problem, if the salaries of GTF lls (those who have completed one
year of work) were commensurate with the 1969 salaries, they would
now be earning $147 per month more.
The union’s goal is to secure a contract with the University which
would immediately bring GTF wages into line with the 1969 wages and
also establish a cost of living allowance which would tie our wages to
future cost of living increases.
Wage concessions will only come if pressure is brought to bear
on the University administration and the State Board of Higher Educa
tion. Both these bodies are attempting to define the fiscal situation in
their own terms. (See “Chipping the U. of O. Budget Down to Size” in
the Eugene Register Guard, 3/27/77.) Without an organization to de
fine and defend our interests, the University’s game of “selective” and
accidental cuts is a game with built-in winners and losers. With an
organization we have lobbying power in Salem and bargaining power
with the University, and need no longer be passive recipients of arbit
rary and inflexible austerity budgeting.
Budget cuts are being used as an argument against unionization,
we get a wage increase, it is said, the University will just cut the
number of GTFs hired. This is not true. We can negotiate class size as
well. Limiting class size will improve the conditions of instruction and
the quality of education while also stimulating the demand for more
GTFs to teach the added sections. A strong union contract is in the
best interest of the GTFs, faculty and students.
In addition to the wage issue, the GTF-Federation affords us an
organization through which we can bargain and lobby for benefits and
legislation on a wide range of educational and social concerns. The
^h'lw1 as,a re^y '*s support to legislation designed to expand
c i care benefits for students. The union also took a strong stand in
e past year in favor of nuclear safeguards. These and other issues
concerning students at the University of Oregon can be effectively
addressed through a strong union.
Democracy has two sides. Vote for yours.
Cora Fisher
Jerry Lembcke
GTF-Federation