GETOUIJ*
the vote!
Polls open 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Oregon daily
emerald
Tuesday, November 2, 1982
I
Eugene, Oregon
Volume 84, Number 43
---1
Educators debate access vs. quality
By Debbie Howlett
Of tfM EnwiM
Some higher education officials say a
quality education cannot be accessible
to everyone Others say an education
that isn't accessible to all is "elitist,"
not quality
University Pres Paul Olum says that
the argument of access versus quality
is a "false dichotomy ”
"I don't think quality and access
should be pitted against each other,"
Olum says "There is no simple formula
linking them. If you mean by reducing
access, you improve quality — I reject
that completely. The student-faculty
ratio doesn’t determine quality "
Chancellor Bud Davis agrees with
Olum's sentiment
“To pose that question is to assume
that they are mutually exclusive," Davis
says "It's almost unconstitutional to
expect any thing less than quality and
access "
But if Olum and Davis are insistent
about lack of correlation between
access and quality, several groups and
individuals are just as adamant — in tbe
other direction
Former Chancellor Roy Lieuallen,
now an adviser for the Western
Interstate Commission on Higher
Education, says the University will have
to choose between quality and access
"I happen to believe that you can t
have both quality and access."
Lieuallen says ' The argument I offer
(to improve or maintain quality) is to
reduce access "
And between those two ends of the
scale are many people balanced
somewhere toward the middle
A few weeks ago the Oregon Educa
tion Coordinating Commission's advi
sory council met with the commission
to review budget policies for the next
two years
The meeting was a chance for on
lookers and council members to tell the
commission which direction they would
prefer to see education go — toward
access or quality
But coming up with a solution that
will satisfy everyone is no easy task
Before his retirement, Lieuallen says
members of the state board asked
themselves some of the ques
tions the OECC is now pondering
"We were making the case that we
had to reduce the number we were
serving or reduce the quality,"
Lieuallen says "If you reduce money
and the number of people (propor
tionately), you can preserve quality, but
you're reducing access
“You have to ask, does the public
put a higher value on access than
quality?' ”
“In order to have good quality you
need good faculty, a good library, what
I'd call state-of-the-art’ equipment and
support staff All of that costs
money good people tend to go
where the money is,” Lieuallen says.
When someone says you can maintain
quality without that. I don't believe it "
And the OECC's executive director
also offers his set of definitions
You can argue that you can't define
quality. ’ says T K Olson "I think that's
not true."
Olson says he feels peer evaluation
and student-faculty ratio are indicators
of quality
"In access." Olson says, the dis
tinction that's meaningful is between
access and choice "
Olson defines access as the chance
to attend school, which he says is not
as limited as some believe. He defines
choice as a decision about which
school to attend, which he says may be
somewhat limited.
Robert MacVicar, president of Ore
gon State University, has expressed
concern that a good balance has not
been achieved In a statement mailed to
the commission, MacVicar mourned
the passing of OSU’s "open door"
policy
"We re now having to close the door
to too many students," MacVicar wrote
We re having to say to some who
would have enrolled and succeeded,
sorry, we can t serve you.’ ”
An "elitist approach to education is
evident in Oregon now on the part of
some, including some legislators,"
MacVicar added
The legislature becomes involved
because the argument of quality versus
access revolves mostly around one
thing — money Or more precisely, the
lack of it.
Ed Harms, a member of the State
Board of Higher Education, says the
shortage of state money might be the
major reason for the argument's
increasing intensity. State budget
shortfalls were often compensated for
by cutting services rather than raising
revenue.
"Some choices have to be made in
the face of a budget deficit," Harms
says. Those choices have boiled
down to a question of whether access
Roy Lieuallen
or quality is preferable And from the
way the 1983-85 budgeting process
has begun, the trend away from access
will probably continue
The OECC’s advisory meeting was a
prelude to a budget assessment
hearing outlining the policy and philo
sophy behind OECC budget
recommendations
Olson says to maintain the present
access level in the state system, more
money would have to come from the
legislature; to maintain quality, fewer
students will be able to attend school
and more teachers may be out of work
One thing is clear, officials don't
agree about which is more desirable.
"If you maintain access and destroy
quality, who would want (an
education)?" says Richard Hill, Univer
sity provost.
"It isn't a clean-cut thing," Harms
says. "You’re weighing to get a balance
that's equitable. You want the most
quality with as much access as is
practical."
Nuclear freeze demonstration ‘kills’ 50 people
By Richard Burr
Of tfw Emerald
With some casualties using
backpacks as pillows to comfort
their demise, about 50 people
“died” Monday on the EMU
Courtyard from a hypothetical
nuclear warhead
The students were "dead" for
three minutes during the noon
hour to show their support for
Ballot Measure 5, which urges
the United States and Soviet
Union to mutually freeze the
production and testing of
nuclear weapons The event
was organized by Students for a
Nuclear Free Future.
“There will be a 30-second
Civil Defense warning before
you die,” said event narrator
Michael Sheehan, who drew
laughter from the audience for
the comment.
Sheehan gave the
demonstrators their cue to die
and described the theoretical
damage done in the time period
as a black-robed flutist played in
the backround. The blast would
destroy four hospitals, three
colleges and all government
buildings in the area, he said
Some nonparticipants carried
their bicycles over the bodies as
members of th.e media scurried
among the demonstrators for
pictures
About one year ago, students
staged a similar event to bring
attention to the nuclear freeze
issue as it began gaining
momentum.
A panel discussion of five
University professors followed
the event. Although the profes
sors agreed on a mutual freeze,
they had different interpreta
tions of the political intentions
Albert Szymanski, associate
professor of sociology, said the
Soviet Union has mostly reacted
in self-defense to American
nuclear superiority. The Soviet
Union has trailed the United
States in numbers and
technology of nuclear weapons,
he said
The Cuban missile crisis was
a turning point for the United
States because it made people
suspicious of former Pres.
Kennedy’s claims of missile
inferiority to the Soviet Union,
said Cheyney Ryan, associate
professor of philosophy.
The Soviet Union was willing
to take their missiles out of Cuba
if the United States took missiles
out of Turkey, which the
Kennedy administration already
planned to do, Ryan said. But
Kennedy, "for sheer political
motivation," refused the solu
tion to assert the image of
American superiority, he added.
Aaron Novick, biology
department head who worked
on the first atom bomb,
disagreed with the two profes
sors’ statements.
"I can’t believe there are that
many evil people in the world or
else we re all lost," he said.
The solution is to figure out
why people oppose the freeze
and persuade them by keeping
in mind their perspective,
Novick said.
"It's great to have die-ins, but
that’s not enough," he said.
“You have to use your head.”
Photo by Dave Kao
"Dead" bodies litter the EMU Courtyard as 50 students participated
in a "die-in " to demonstrate the hypothetical effects of a nuclear
bomb blast in the Eugene area.