Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 27, 1978)
GTFF (Continued from Page 1) tion was passed quickly calling for a second attempt to muster the two-thirds majority of all members required to ratify a strike. Union and University negotiators will meet Tuesday at 3 p.m. in the EMU. The GTFF, Local 3544 of the American Federation of Teachers requested a national field representative from the FT's to help with bargaining talks. Rat teree said the representative should arrive in Eugene sometime next week. In a short meeting following the vote. Pres. Ratteree said the vote’s outcome “means we’ll probably not be able to extract any more concessions from the Uni versity.” He urged the members present to look forward to signing a con tract and using the grievance pro cedure to enforce it. “We are here, and we’re not going to go away,” he said. Two issues, salaries and strike clause language, remain in dis pute. Differences over salaries center around a union demand for an across-the-board $40 per month raise to help GTFs purch ase private health insurance. Oregon law prohibits the Univer sity from paying into a GTF health plan. The union’s pay demand re ceived full support in a fact finder’s report issued Sept. 12. University Pres. William Boyd rejected the report, saying the University could meet GTFF salary demands only by taking money from budget ac counts with “higher priority." The union is arguing for a sen tence in the contract’s strike clause that would allow GTFs to honor another union's primary picket line. The University op poses the sentence, pointing out that Oregon law defines the cros sing ot picket lines by public em ployees as an illegal strike action. The fact finder recommended deleting the sentence from the strike clause, agreeing with the University’s rationale. Union negotiators reintroduced the sen tence, feeling the law’s lan guage is cloudy enough to merit clarification in the courts. Student access issue endures: the debate spans the decade By RICHARD WEINS For the Emerald Since the origin of academia, students have griped and praised their professors. But only since 1966 have University students graded their instruc tors with evaluation forms. It was in the spring of that year when former University Pres. Arthur Flemming announced that evaluation-of-faculty forms drawn up by a student committee would be given a “trial run." Professors were not required to submit to evaluations, but two thirds of the faculty agreed to try it. Flemming drew criticism from some faculty members for giving stu dents the right to publish evaluation results. Everyone knew what student’s thought of the professors who were willing to be evaluated. But in a time of growing radicalism, the ASUO grew deter mined to evaluate all faculty members — willing or unwilling.The ASUO collected evaluations of un cooperative professors by surveying students as they entered or left classrooms. Henry Drummonds, ASUO president in 1966-67, said the philosophy behind the Faculty Evaluation Book was for “stu dents to have a positive right to evaluate their profes sors and to make those evaluations available to other students.” But the students’ “positive right’’ was thwarted a year later when the ASUO stopped published evalua tion results amid threats of libel suits from some disgruntled professors. So, for several years, evalua tions were not conducted. The present state of course evaluations began in late 1975 when the faculty senate, obeying a law passed by the legislature, passed legislation requir ing all instructors of 001 through 499 courses to be evaluated. The faculty set detailed guidelines for what form the evaluations should take, and how the surveys would be conducted. The faculty legislation also required instructors to submit course information on the type of homework assigned, average size of the class, course objectives and the format of class meetings (information now printed in ASUO's The Guide). But the legislation denied students access to evaluation results, stating that “relative judgements by students of faculty members’ personalities can lead to pressure which can be counter-productive to their teaching.” Since 1975, University students have filled out evaluation forms, the cumulative results of which they never learn. Oregon State University faces an identical situation but at Portland State University, .results of student evaluations of instructors are pub lished yearly for all to see. The PSU evaluation policy is similar to this University’s 1967 policy that professors can decide not to be evaluated. According to Bill Williams, as sociate dean of students at PSU, only one-third of that university’s professors allow themselves to be evaluated. X uJHfRf me id useo to Br inTeRfSTinG paperbacks EROm UniVERSliH PRESSES: PHILOSOPHH SOCIOLOGM P54CHOLOGH THCATRC ARTS LITCRARH CRITICISm -flnD mOR£ CHfCK OUT OUR mflGflZine Room. 13lh and Aider 484-5533 T 1a offset H 1C PRINTING E ■ T SPECIAL for ."iOO or more of an original printed on white 20-lb. or 100. recycled Campus Copy 762 East [3th EL COMEDOR MEXICAN RESTAURANT ALA CARTE SPECIALTIES Tacos, Tostados, Enchiladas, Burritos, Chili, Chili Rellanos, Quesadilla, Chili Burgers, Taco Burgers, Taco Salad, Tamales On Oakway Road just behind the Oakway Mall Open Mon.-Sat. 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sundays noon to 8 p.m. MEXICAN FOOD AT ITS BEST Your input is still in Demand! Apply for a Student/Faculty Committee and express your views. Advising Committee 2 openings Assembly and University Lectures 1 opening , Campus Planning . , . 2 openings Ethnic Studies 5 openings Failing Distinguished Lecture Series 1 opening Festival of Arts 2 1 yr. openings 3 2 yr: openings Minority Education Council 4 openings New Student Orientation 1 graduate opening Safety Advisory 2 openings Scholarships 1 opening Scholastic Deficiency 2 openings Student Conduct 3 openings Traffic Appeals Board 1 opening University Appeals Board 3 openings Women’s Studies Council 2 openings Information & Applications are in Suite 4, EMU A*el Co- 0(uh4 CluxC <01 met Cixou^A. hk eut I <j< t&c SmcudeC 'Pvmgk&U . . .
