-editorial
Approve safety net
Oregon’s 60-year-oid school financing system is like
a Ford Model T that is going to be traded in as soon as the
public can decide which new, streamlined make of car to
choose as a replacement. Until that decision is made,
however, the old Tin Lizzie needs to be patched together
with the best available baling wire to prevent breakdowns
such as happened last year when schools in three Oregon
districts were closed.
The first — and possibly the best — baling wire
available this year is the school “safety net” proposal, an
amendment to the Oregon Constitution appearing on next
Tuesday’s special election ballot as Measure No. 1.
The safety net’s most attractive feature is that it
would effectively solve the school financing system’s
most pressing problem: keeping the schools open. It
would guarantee that local school districts have at least
as much money in their operating budgets as in the
previous year, plus optional increases of up to six per
cent.
Thus the safety net would keep schoolchildren from
being the victims of budgetary squabbling between voters
and their school boards. Education is, or should be , a
right, not a privilege; the safety net would keep that right
from becoming a political football at election time.
The guaranteed operating budget is the heart of the
safety net proposal. Its provisions would take effect if the
school property tax levy were defeated twice at the polls.
To many people, this sounds like taking control of
local school budgets away from voters and giving it to the
school boards. This is true to a limited extent. But voters
would have the final say so on any budget increase
beyond the six per cent limitation. Considering that
school property taxes have increased at an average yearly
rate of 11.6 per cent since 1968, the safety net would leave
considerable power in the hands of the voters.
In many ways, voter control of school budgets would
be greater with the safety net. School boards could no
longer threaten voters with dosed schools in order to
pass a budget levy. And the limit on the number of times
a levy can be taken to the voters would keep school
boards from trooping voters to the polls five of six times
until the school board finally gets what it vents.
In the last analysis, through their elected school
boards, voters actually have complete control over their
school budgets. If the voters think a six per cent increase
is more than their school districts need, they can elect
school board members who will vote accordingly. And by
shifting a measure of budgetary responsibility from the
voters to the school boards, the safety net would increase
the accountability of board members on other matters as
well.
The Legislature has a lot of work to do on Oregon’s
school financing system. The safety net proposal does
not address the problems of equalization and state
funding levels. It does, however, represent a first step
in the direction of reform, and an essential step in that it
removes the threat of school closures. Arguments against
the safety net are going to sound pretty thin in retrospect
if schools start closing next fail. Measure No. 1 deserves
approval.
V
Letters
Election conspiracy
Here in full face of 16,000 stu
dents a man has had his rights as
a student and citizen totally viol
ated. The governing body of this
ASUO has blatantly broken their
own laws. Not, of course, without
the help and support of this day to
day campus communicator: con
spiring to portray this man as a
fool and a mindless 1960’s lef
tover, stabbing in the dark and
just plain a poor loser.
When in fact Craig Geary,
aside from being more qualified
than any of these office holding
wind baggers, threatened to blow
a hole in that ASUO utopia They
then acted as the threatened
children that they are and broke
their own rules. Jamie Bums, on
April 22, declared Craig’s write-in
campaign legal, as is everywhere
else in this country of ours. Two
days later, not without great
bombardment from his en
trenched comrades, Jamie
changed his decision illegally,
without an administrative hearing
in Craig’s presence.
Another fact is that Jamie dug
himself in deeper by calling it his
own decision, which was a bold
face lie. I personally heard Jan
Oliver teB Craig that yes, in fact, it
was her decision and that she
told Jamie to change it, again il
legal. Not to mention Jim
Bernau's little chat with a would
be reporter, teling him that “we”
can’t let him run, he’ll throw off
the majority and we ll have to
have another election.
Outrageous, yes, obvious, yes
— Yet they are continuing to try to
shove Craig under the rug. Right
in front of afl you 16,000 watch
ing. Craig will not be shoved, he
is fighting for his rights and for the
rights of every student. That
every person shaB be entitled to a
fair and honest election for any
position which they choose to run.
Craig has been railroaded by a
few mindless children, these very
children are administrating the
laws each and every one of you
are bound by. Not to mention that
your $85 a term is in their hands to
do with as they jolly well please.
The answer, the recourse — a
true and honest election.
Nancy Schmidt
Graduate — Dance
jxwvw—fx. fimm m nunm> twavs wm m qumw. .. *
Overly responsible
In response to the ODE’S
Tuesday, May 11 editorial, I feel
compelled to clarify, no, correct
the emphasis it placed on the
hypocrisy of the whale move
ment.
Overall, the editorial was sim
ply pointing out the need for en
vironmental priorities. It was well
put that environmental issues that
are more local in nature should
have greater importance. How
ever, the editorial misled us to
believe that the whale issue is
somehow unimportant.
Timber issues, endangered
plant species and even the Alvord
Chubb are of immediate concern
and importance. True, but these
issues are better left to special in
terest groups because they re
quire more specific knowledge
than is necessary to understand
the whaling issue.
The whaling issue, as a popu
lar movement, complements other
environmental issues because it
gives the amateur environmen
talist a chance to become more
aware of the other “equally pres
sing environmental issues closer
to home.’’
The purpose of the editorial
was to appeal to our sense of en
vironmental responsibility.
Perhaps it was overly responsible
to the point of irresponsibility. It
detracts from any positive effects
that the enthusiasm over the wh
aling issue might produce.
Thomas Bricca
Junior — Finance
Sacrifice required
Wednesday's ODE editorial
(Save the whales — later) hit the
nail on the head. The whales are
indeed in need of salvation, but
the size of the Save-the-Whale
bandwagon depresses me when I
think of the Umpqua National
Forest just south of us without a
single wilderness area and only a
bare handful of wilderness de
fenders. Its hard for me to de
nounce the Japanese and Rus
sian whaling industries when I’m
recalling that from the top of any
of the pristine peaks of the
Oregon Cascades the view to the
west is filled with industrial haze
and huge dearcuts. Somehow it’s
just not a comfort to me to know
that I can hike Oregon’s trails
without fear of meeting certain
kinds of bears, cougars, and
other endangered or eliminated
spedes.
Saving the whales is a good
cause, but it’s also a popular
cause, and an easy one. It lets a
lot of people feel good about their
environmental involvement while
ignoring the basic environmental
issue. That issue is sacrifice. You
can’t save something and exploit
it at the same time; which is to
say you can't have your cake and
eat it too. In practical terms, that
means things like making $4.50
an hour as a tree planter when
you could make $6.50 an hour as
a logger. We all benefit from
Oregon's timber-based economy,
but we all lose when wilderness is
gone forever.
I urge those who like the good
feeling of helping to save some
thing to begin at home, by attend
ing the Congressional Wilderness
hearing this Saturday, May 14, 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. at Harris Hall, 8th
Av. and Oak St. in Eugene. While
you're there, see slides of the
present roadless areas in the
Harris Hall basement.
Phil Robbins
Senior — Sociology
More than survival
Regarding Tuesday s opinion,
“rural life romanticized ':
Walker Evans' Farm Service
Administration photographs of
the Great Depression can hardly
give an impression of rural life
other than extreme poverty. Who
wouldn’t want "to leave these bad
dreams behind?” It's only through
romancing science and its sister,
technology, that agribusiness and
exploiting corporations have sold
America their bill of goods. In the
name of Progress we eat over
processed, engineered foods
with poison added for flavor and
freshness (not to mention the rest
of our developed, abstract lifes
tyle).
You haven’t arrived in “a cul
ture which strains to recapture
that which simply never existed,''
but one which looks toward what
could (or should) exist. Unfortu
nately, we cannot turn back the
clock, but we can choose from all
this “sophisticated” technology
that which is beneficial rather
than let “criminal multi-nationals"
continue to decide what is best
for us. I hope my desire for crystal
pure air and organic foods
doesn't prevent life from becom
ing something more than mere
survival.
Gary Trendler
Springfield, Or.
Defend territory
Come, children, gather around
and I’ll teach you some facts of
life.
Man is an animal of the highest
order, a social animal and a pre
dator. The roots of his genes are
in the slime of the primeval seas.
Within his genes are imprinted
the instincts of animal survival
that reach back through the eons
to the misty beginnings of life it
self.
Foremost among these myriad
instincts are survival, territoriality,
dominance, sex, and perhaps the
most recently acquired one from
our predator primate ancestors,
the use of tools. Tools for killing
— weapons of war with which to
obtain and retain food and shel
ter, our nation, social status and
mates.
Although man is a thinking
animal (Homo Sapiens), his inh
erited animal instincts ultimately
dictate his behavioral patterns.
Therefore, to thine own self be
true. Deny not your inheritance.
Remember that your neighbor
possesses the same set of in
stincts as you do. So prepare
yourself to defend your territory.
Viva ROTC!
Oversimplified? Sure, but it's
only a lesson for children.
Bill Manley
Assistant to the Director
University Physical .Plant
n liaerness nearing
Saturday at Harris Hall we will
have an opportunity to express
our views on wilderness in
Oregon. A public hearing will be
held on the Endangered Ameri
can Wilderness Act (HR 3454), a
bill which would make the follow
ing areas wilderness: French
Pete, Middle Santiam, Wild
Rogue, and additions to the Kal
miopsis Wilderness.
These areas represent only a
small percentage of the total land
area belonging to the Forest Ser
vice. Hence their addition to the
Wilderness Preservation System
would not endanger the jobs of
loggers and millworkers. There
are still plenty of areas to log, and
not so many suitable for wilder
ness.
I urge everyone to go to Harris
Hall, Saturday, May 14, from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., and physically and
verbally show your support for
wilderness in Oregon!
Jane Gregg
Sophomore-Undeclared
Sexist reference
It is always encouraging to see
an article dealing with sex dis
crimination such as the May 11
"Family fights sex discrimina
tion.” However, the first parag
raph contains a rather ironic
statement when it referred to the
Aiken family as “the Robert Aiken
family.” I fail to see how the
Aikens are any more Robert’s
than his wife Barbara's. I suspect,
and rightfully so, that if anything,
Barbara Aiken put forth the decid
ing effort in the family’s produc
tion and more than likely, its very
sustenance.
Language is a very powerful
instrument, and at times when it
is abused it serves to perpetuate
rather than curtail sex discrimina
tion.
Vernon Server Campbell
Sophomore —
Elementary Education
EVislau Mev 19 1077