dcay emerald
Vol. 82, No. 140
Eugene, Oregon 97403
m
4
Friday, April 24, 1981
: * i s'
•••V X
Pulling the Millrace plug
Members of Greek houses bordering the Millrace joined volunteers for the annual Millrace clean-up. The yearly event is part of
Photo by Steve Dykes
Earth week activities.
Eaton, state aide disagree over fee policy
By GREG WASSON
Of the Emarald
Faced with growing expenditures and decreasing
revenues, the University athletic department is scram
bling for funds. John Moore of the Oregon Student
Lobby says the dash invariably leads to students and
their money.
Monday, Moore outlined the situation for the Sen
ate Education Committee. In his testimony, he high
lighted the predicament of students at the University
and Portland State, who last year witnessed a forced
$700,000 expenditure for athletics.
"At the two universities, a system of sorts has
emerged — that nearly intentional generation of deficits
and the annual trip to the incidental-fee well. Student
union budgets and educational activities budgets have
become a sort of ready reserve account from which a
profligate athleticdom can satisfy its fiscal thirst.”
Moore was followed by ASUO Pres.Dave Eaton,
who outlined last year's negotiations to the committee.
Eaton said the IFC recommended to the state board that
incidental fees increase to slightly less than 10 percent
— to $40 per term — but the board sided with the
administration and set the fee at $50 per term, a 37
percent jump.
“The entire difference between the recommenda
tions was in the allocation for the athletic department,”
Eaton said.
He pointed out that the students had recommended
$7 per term to athletics while “the institution recom
mended each student pay $17 per term, a 240 percent
increase.”
Moore and Eaton made their remarks during a
public hearing of SB 720, which would give students
control over the level and distribution of incidental fees.
Current law vests that power with the state board.
The testimony in favor of the bill was contradicted
by Bill Leeman of the Department of Higher Education.
Leeman listed a host of consititutional and administra
tive problems that would result if the legislature gave
students control of the fees.
At one point, Sen. Rod Monroe, D-Portland, asked
Leeman how he would feel if the present system was
amended so that whenever a university president seeks
to deviate from the student recommendation there must
be an election.
"I think it would be an infringement on the respon
sibility of the president he couldn't live with,” Leeman
replied.
“This bill is an even greater infringement,” contin
ued Monroe, “because this allows a greater lever of
student involvement."
Continued on Page 3
First-borns fail to look ahead, prof says
By CAROLINE PETRICH
Of the Emerald
First-born children will be the death of America.
That’s the view of Vernon Weckworth, anyway.
Weckworth claims the methodical style of first
borns has dangerously damaged the United States’
corporate structure by concentrating on short-term
benefits rather than future achievements.
Weckworth, a professor of health sciences at the
University of Minnesota, bases his theory on 20 years
of research. He spoke last week to a group in Beaver
ton.
If Weckworth’s theory holds true, then the
University may be in trouble.
University Pres. Paul Olum is a first-born. So is law
school dean Derrick Bell. Other first-borns include
vice president for administarion and finance Ray
Hawk and associate business school dean Del Haw
kins.
Their problem, according to Weckworth, is that
first-borns approach problems traditionally and follow
them step-by-step to a logical end. That's bad,
because they fail to take the long view, often to their
corporations’ detriment.
Better off are the second-boms, who solve prob
lems intuitively and work them backwards in their
minds.
However, it takes a large family to produce truly
capable administrators, Weckworth says. Third-born
children combine the formal and informal steps to
problem-solving while stressing healthy human rela
tions. Fourth-borns put it all together and emerge with
something new.
Putting the theory to use, Weckworth might
charge first-born Olum with paying too much attention
to management control and ignoring the sensitivities
of his employees.
But first-of-four-children Bell says he doesn’t fit
into Weckworth’s theory.
“It’s sort of like reading horoscopes," Bell says.
“When you specify under broad generalizations, there
is always that aspect that seems to have surf ace
validity. I like to think I use all approaches to solve
problems.”
Hawk is a second-born who was raised as a
first-born (his older brother died during childhood). He
claims to be a strong believer in human interaction
and calls the Weckworth's theory stereotypical.
Hawkins is also the second son in his family, but
his older brother left home when Hawkins was a year
old. However, he doesn’t find Weckworth’s theory so
preposterous.
Hawkins speculates first-borns have no role
models to examine and therefore solve problems in a
step-by-step way. Younger siblings can observe older
siblings' interaction with parents and then decide to
use a different — and perhaps more effective — style.
Math department head Theodore Palmer is the
third child in his family, but he says his profession
demands the logical problem-solving style of first
borns.
Psychology Prof. Mary Rothbart, who has con
ducted a birth-order study of her own, is ‘skeptical of
Weckworth’s theory. Rothbart says socio-economic
factors, family size and other variables must be
considered when analyzing child-development.
And first-born Rothbard adds that Weckworth’s
theory doesn’t match her adminstrative attitude
As Bell says, "It's very difficult to nail human
beings down."
Another problem with the theory is that it only
covers the first four children. That leaves people such
as journalism dean Galen Rarick in a quandry.
Rarick's an eighth-born.