opinion_
Students again suffer faculty partisanship
The University Assembly’s rejection
Wednesday of student access to statis
tical course evaluation information
shows that body’s willingness to put
self interests above those of students
and the University.
Their action is a typical example of
no-win games students play negotiat
ing their way through the University.
But eternal compromise to a group of
professors who can have a 10 percent
showing and still out-vote students
three to one is no longer the only game
in town.
Already, the ASUO Executive, the
Incidental Fee Committee and SUAB
are committed to using a full-time legis
lative lobbyist to push this issue in
Salem. With cooperation from the
Oregon Student Lobby and several
legislators who showed their warm col
ors last session, debate will be pre
empted from campus cloisters and
considered as possible legislation.
If properly organized, the effort of
those groups will produce a fair chance
of legislating release of the evaluative
data to students and the public by next
school year.
But this task will take months of work
and several thousand dollars. It's a
burdensome, irritable expense stu
dents shouldn’t have to bear.
No matter what History Prof. Paul
Hoi bo says about the intent of his sub
stitute motion was in dealing with
course evaluations, his effect was to
cancel faculty sentiment drifting toward
allowing students the benefit of know
ing how their peers felt about classes.
Typically, it’s Holbo and a crew of
professors from the same mold who in
blustery insensitivity keep the Univer
sity Assembly from doing anything
constructive.
An Ad Hoc Committee on Course
'■CL--95
;k > < C^rOf
--W 'ttrr^
' HDD'S CNTIRST? I-PONG-NO? NO, HEE'S ON THIRD ...THEN,VWTS ON SECOND,..
Evaluations spent nearly a year work
ing on a proposal that would stand
ardize course evaluation data and pro
vide a mechanism for use of that data
by students.
After two sessions of debate, the
University Senate endorsed the
committee s work and recommended it
along with two SUAB proposals to the
University Assembly.
And their work died
University Pres. William Boyd has
the authority to mandate release of
evaluations to students. Boyd says he
believes the information should be
available to students but has refused to
follow his words with action, saying the
final decision should be made by the
faculty.
While such a decision may per
petuate his love affair with the faculty, it
speaks poorly of his new-found com
mitment to improve the plight of stu
dents. His slowness to act in sup
port of his slowing rhetoric lets
works fall like lead to the floor.
But when the faculty and Boyd have
been rebuked, we reserve some dis
may over the SUAB’s naivete in handl
ing the issue.
Being on the right side isn’t good
enough.
Eighteen students had the chance of
lobbying with favorable faculty to bring
them to the vote.
ASUO surveys reveal that a majority
of University faculty may support stu
dent access to course evaluation ma
terial and having those votes at the
meeting could have made the differ
ence.
Having failed there, the SUAB has
wisely decided to support ASUO Ex
ecutive and OSL intentions to go to the
Legislature with the unreasonable, un
retractable decision they desire.
.yoiis
Intent altered
On the issue of course evaluations, it is important to
realize that the new form now being debated radically alters
the intent of the evaluation process. Presently we have a
form with a large number of specific questions designed to
aid the instructor improve teaching. Every computer print
out of the results carries the message that the form was
developed solely for the instructor’s information.” In fact,
the results seem to be monitored by the administration for
use in promotion, salary, and tenure decisions, which may
represent an abuse of the material. The new form proposed
by committee and now being debated reduces the number
of questions so that the instructor merely learns if the
course was popular and if the students feel they learned. It
is no aid to instruction. The sole intent of such a form (apart
from individual written comments, which are always possi
ble) is to aid in promotion, salary, and tenure decisions. _
Possibly the results of any type of form would be useful
to students, but it is also true that skill is required in inter
preting the results. It is doubtful that very many faculty or
administrators are competent in interpreting the present
forms.
Name withheld on request
A blind attitude
On Wednesday, December 6, the University Assem
bly voted once again to deny students access to faculty
evaluations. This action is in no uncertain terms irresponsi
ble and without merit. When one considers that the majority
of faculty are in favor of open evaluations one can only
wonder at who among our faculty are so afraid of having
their performance made public that they must pack the
Assembly to vote no on this issue.
Without a doubt this casts doubt on the integrity of
some of our faculty and in doing so casts a shadow all over.
We call on those dear thinking faculty members to confront
their colleagues and associates and let them know this
blind attitude cannot continue. We call on students to
clearly indicate their preference for open access on any
further evaluation.
As for the AS U of O, we cannot and will not allow a
minority faculty opinion to hold us back. We have waited a
long time. We are prepared to pursue this issue with the
Oregon Legislature. We are pledged to combat this
abridgement of students' rights. We are determined to suc
ceed. We will not be silenced. We will not step down.
Jeffery S. Warren
A.S.U.O. V.P.
State and Federal
Affairs
Gary McMahon
Chairman, SUAB
Janet Eggleston
Chairman, IFC
End Dark Ages
It’s good to note that tradition, disrespect for students,
and fear have been once again joined to defeat a method
of allowing students to know of teacher evaluations. This
re-affirms the following pattern:
1. That teaching remains the secondary purpose of
the University. (Right in there behind research and publi
cation.)
2. That knowledge about teachers anc’ courses remains
a secret subject, discussed (in hushed tones of course) by
upper level students within their respective departments.
(God help the new students or those attempting a variety
of courses. The quality of their education is left to the
roulette method of course selection.)
3. That faculty and the administration treat students
as subordinates: obviously we are not mature enough,
intelligent enough, or responsible enough to make evalua
tions that can be made public.
4. That poor teachers (yes, believe it or not, there are
some of those), can remain in the University with little
incentive to improve their teaching. (Or little incentive to
teach only those courses in which they excel, or concen
trate on research if they can’t teach, etc.)
Despite the benefits of the above system, it might be
important to speculate on what would happen if public
student evaluations were made available.
1. Teacher evaluations would get better. (As evalua
tions became more important to teachers and students,
efforts would be intensive to make them honest, com
prehensive, and useful.)
2. Teaching quality would become more important to
the University.
(Faced with students picking classes based on know
ledge, the administration would be forced to help teachers
improve their classes.) Teaching would improve.
3. Teachers would put a greater value on teaching
quality. Most would work to get better. (And would be
openly supported in that endeavor by the University and
students alike.) Others would teach only what they could
teach best. And some who are only good at research and
wish to remain so would only do research. Teaching would
improve.
4. Students would pick classes best suited to their
educational needs.
5. More good students would go to a University that
placed such a high value on teaching. (In times of declin
ing enrollments this becomes increasingly important.)
Good teachers would also go to a school which openly
places a value on teaching. Students and teachers would
work together towards the same goal: better education.
It seems extremely ironic (if not incomprehensible)
that a University (which would seem to choose knowledge
over ignorance) in the free-market eoonomy of America
vwnere me consumer, supposedly, Knows Desij wouiu in
sist on a system of hiding teacher evaluations from those
who made those evaluations.
If the Administration continues with this absurdity I
can only suggest that students start making and publish
ing separate evaluations. Like scientific research 978
years ago, it is time that teacher evaluations came out of
the Dark Ages.
Karl Mawaon
graduate, urban planning