Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 29, 1978)
opinion Senate should endorse course review plan Contrary to the beliefs of disco diehards and sport superfans, maintenance of a high-quality academic environment re mains the primary concern of an educa tional institution. The University has the opportunity to im prove this climate soon by endorsing a proposal that would bring uniformity and accessibility to student course evaluations. Such a proposal — the result of more than a year's vigorous research by an ad hoc committee — awaits action by the Uni versity Senate. The committee s evaluation form, de signed to allow computer tabulation of re sponses, would elicit students’ judgments in five general areas of teaching qualities demonstrated by each of their instructors. University departments could add up to six additional evaluative questions oriented toward their particular field of study. Students would rate the various qualities of each course and instructor through use of a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly satisfied to strongly dissatisfied. A section allowing open-ended written com ments by students would be forwarded to professors, if the comments were un signed, and made available for administra tive consideration, if signed by the student. Senate recommendation of the proposal and its adoption by the University Assembly would eliminate a hodge-podge of widely varied survey forms now designed and ad ministered by each department. The total cost of the evaluation process would also be reduced by a single, uniform survey form. The University-wide comparability of evaluations would benefit both the ad ministration, which uses the data in deci sions on profession promotion, pay and te nure, and students, who should be given access to the statistical results of the evalu ations. This latter point — availability of informa tion for students planning their programs of study — appears to be a major obstacle in winning senate and assembly approval of a revised evaluation procedure. That it has become so reveals an appar ent inability by these faculty-dominated forums to escape a narrow, short-sighted view of matters in which they have strong, vested interests. Some faculty members seem to have sincere concerns about the applicability of a general evaluation form to particular courses. Others believe individual profes sors should have the option to close the results of their evaluation to students, a pol icy that would inject further inconsistency into the usefulness of the evaluations. The College of Law faculty recently set the right example by opening survey results to their students. In most cases, however, the real objec tion stems from a defensiveness about stu dents using peer judgments in deciding whether to register for a specific class. Ad vocates of closing survey results to stu dents argue that the latter would be gulled into a flippant evaluation of courses and professors that would end up as a “popular ity contest." The fact that students now know — when they evaluate instructors — that neither they nor their fellow students will be able to take advantage of their collective effort seems more likely to decrease the serious ness with which they approach the task. A further inconsistency in the “no accessibility” argument lies in faculty members’ willingness to accept student evaluations as valid for administrative re view but invalid for students’ use in select ing courses. But, inconsistency aside, we consider the students’ need to obtain all the information available on courses to outweigh some fa culty members’ disinclination to have opin ions of their skills made public. All the arguments about inappropriate survey questions and popularity contests will not erase the fact that some University courses are badly designed and taught, that students know one when they take it and that other students should have a right to know about these. The Senate should recommend adoption of a uniform evaluation form and, after the recent example of the College of Law fa culty, make course-evaluation results available to students. vours Support solidarity On Nov. 29, the day of solidarity with the Palestinian people, peo ple and organizations all over the world, including the United Na tions, will celebrate and renew their support for the struggle of the Palestinian people against Zionism and its racist state of Is rael. It is a day which recognizes the just struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination and their right to live in a free democra tic state in their homeland. On this occasion it is important to expose the Carter-Begin-Sadat conspiracy, which culminated in the Camp David accords, for its so-called peace in the Middle East. No one in the Arab world, particularly the Palestinian peo ple, believes that those who gathered at Camp David were there to serve peace, but rather their own self-interest. For the United States seeks stability in the area, by any means, to guarantee the continuous flow of oil. In this regard we should take note of what Senator Henry Jack son stated during his latest visit to Israel, "After signing the treaty the two nations (Egypt and Israel) should form the nucleus of a mutual defense agreement for the entire Arab world to defend the energy sources of the Western world.” For Israel the accord would as sert its hegemony over the Arab world. (Other confrontation states would be forced to follow Egypt’s lead or be threatened by an Egyptan/israeli force). Also the treaty would put an end to the Palestinian question, i.e., the right of the Palestinian people for self determination and a democratic state in Palestine. For Sadat’s regime the treaty would put an end to the nationalist era of Nasser — 1952-1967 — which witnessed the anti imperialist movement in the Arab world, the nationalization of the Suez Canal, independence from British colonialism, and support of the national liberation movements in Africa and the Arab world that culminated in ending the colonial presence in the Arab world. Also, the treaty would serve as a prelude to a complete integra tion of Egypt into the imperialist market through Sadat’s Open Door Policy. (Based on a new class alliance the Open Door Pol icy would open the country to foreign interests and its hegemony). The treaty would also turn the Egyptian army into a gen darme in the service of the U.S. against the people of Africa and the Middle East as the Egyptian interference in Zaire and its ag gression against Libya proved. One look at the important items of the treaty reached at Camp David will clearly show the danger which it constitutes to the Arab masses of Palestine and Egypt. Firstly, it is a separate peace treaty between Egypt and Israel attempt to “normalize” relations between Egypt and Israel at the expense of the Arab masses and in particular the right of the Pales tinians for self-determination. It should be clear that a “peace treaty" between Begin and Sadat might come to be a reality but this should not be taken as a fate the Arab masses have to accept. As we are witnessing in Iran today, the oppressive regime of the Shah is crumbling under the blows of the Iranian masses in spite of the massive support given to him by the imperialist camp. The lessons of history are clear that oppression and exploitation need for a national homeland. Taking the self proclaimed re sponsibility to lead the struggle for a homeland is a group called the Palestinian Liberation Organiza tion. An organization such as the P.L.O. can best be described by their statements and actions. Dec. 1968 El Al plane at tacked at Athens; 1 person killed, 1 stewardess wounded. Feb. 1969 El Al plane at tacked at Zurich; co-pilot killed, pilot wounded. Nov. 1969 Hand-grenade at tack on El Al office in Athens; 1 Greek child killed, 13 persons wounded « and as such it will completely iso late the Egyptian masses from the Arab struggle against imperialism, Zionism and Arab reaction. Secondly, Sadat’s talk about the Palestinian problem or a comprehensive “peace” is a mere smoke-screen with which to man ipulate the Egyptian people and to further his own role in the Middle East. In fact, one of Sadat’s danger ous tactics which will harm the Palestinian people even more than what he had already commit ted against them is his attempts to gain self-rule for the Gaza. His reasoning is that “this could serve as a model for the more complex problem of the West Bank.” In re ality what he is trying to achieve is a situation where he could split the Palestinian people and their cause and to create a Palestinian puppet to agree with his plan. We should keep in mind thatthe Palestinian masses and their lib eration movement have rejected the Zionist concept of “self-rule" or “autonomy” that the con spirators at Camp David have agreed to. (How could the Palesti nians accept a ‘‘reservation camp” to replace their right of self-determination and a demo cratic state!) Thirdly, it undermines Egyptian sovereignty. The conditions under which the Sinai will be evacuated states that no Egyptian military personnel can ever be stationed in the evacuated area. Lastly, it will may prevail for a while, as the Shah’s regime did, but in the end the masses are determined to gain their freedom and indepen dence. Thus, the struggle of the Arab people will continue against their historic enemies: Imperialism, led by the U.S. which continues to plunder the national resources; Zionism, which continues its ag gression and denial of the rights of self-determination for the Palesti nian people; Arab Reaction which collaborates for their self-interest against the Arab masses. Only with a people's victory will there be a just peace in the Middle East which will be based on fulfil ling the aspirations of the Palesti nian people to live in a democratic state in their homeland (where Moslems, Christians and Jews could live together in peace) and a democratic, independent Arab world. Kamal Nasir, Committee for a Free Palestine PLO kills peace Today, Nov. 29, has been pro claimed by the United Nations as Palestinian Solidarity day. This day has been proclaimed as to call world attention to the Palestinians Feb. 1970 El Al bus at Munich airport attacked; 1 passenger kil led, 8 others wounded May 1970 School bus from Avivim bombed in Galilee; 7 adults and 5 children murdered, 19 persons wounded Sept. 1970 3 planes (Pan Am, TWA, and Swissair) hijacked with a total of 400 passengers. All 3 planes blown up. Nov. 1971 Wafsi Tal, Prime Minister of Jordan murdered. May 1972 Lod Airport in Israel attacked; 27 persons murdered, 80 wounded Sept. 1972 Munich Olympics; 11 Israeli athletes murdered Mar. 1973 Saudi Arabian Embassy at Khartoum attacked; American Ambassador, his De puty Head, and Belgian Charge d’Affaires murdered. Aug. 1973 Athens airport at tacked; 5 persons killed, 55 wounded Dec. 1973 Pan-Am and Lufthansa planes attacked at Rome airport; 32 passengers kil led May 1974 School at Ma'alot, Israel; 24 children murdered, 70 wounded June 1974 A mother and her 2 children murdered at Nahariya, Is rael Nov. 1974 Village of Beit Shean, Israel; 4 civilians mur dered, 19 wounded May 1975 Savoy Hotel, Tel Aviv; 18 tourists murdered, 30 in jured June 1975 Kibbutz at Kfar Yuval; 1 woman, her husband and her brother murdered July 1975 Bomb exploded in main square in Jerusalem; 15 kil led, 70 wounded Dec. 1977 Bomb placed on crowded Netanya street; 2 per sons killed, 2 injured Nov. 1978 On anniversary of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s visit to Israel, a bomb on a West Bank bus; 4 killed, 37 wounded, bomb in Tel Aviv’s Jaffa district; 2 Israelis wounded, bomb in busy intersection of Jerusalem; bomb defused Totals to date: Over 1170 killed, over 2500 maimed and over 2755 held hostage. Jews, Muslims, Christians, local Arabs, local Jews, tourists, and Pilgrims all kil led indiscriminately. Israel and Egypt both invited a Palestinian representative to the Camp David peace talks; none came forward. The Palestine Liberation Or ganization refused to support the Sadat initiative, which was the first chance at a Palestinian homeland that they had. What has the PLO done about the peace initiative of Egypt, Israel and the U.S.? Only more ter rorism, together with total rejec tion of the only genuine diplomatic initiative that ever has existed in the Middle East or is likely to exist in the near future. This blind refusal to deal with reality allows the Palestinian cause to go by default and con demns the refugees to reman in their camps. Politics is the art of the possible; the PLO is the psychology of the impossible. On a day such as today, with peace in the Middle East near, why must a terrorist group such as the Palestinian Liberation Organi zation take responsibility for the solidarity of the Palestinian peo ple. Oppose murder and ter rorism, condemn the PLO. Sup port peace. Bill Wisdom Jewish Student Union Steering Committee member
