SUAB looks into governance changes
In 1974, The University Charter was formally amended
to allow student representation in the University Senate,
creating the 18-member body of the Student University Af
fairs Board. The 18 members serve together with 36 faculty
members in the University Senate and all faculty in the
General Assembly.
Through the past eight years, the student members of
the SUAB have worked with the faculty and administration
on matters that affect students and the quality of education
at this institution. During this time, the SUAB has made a
great effort in representing the students' interests through
surveys, meetings, and lobbying. We work to express the
views of our constituents in our respective departments
and vote according to our department preferences. Well
over 90 percent of the time has been in line with the faculty
sentiment. Furthermore, since the SUAB represents the
very diversified views of the students in different depart
ments, the board does not vote in a block. The only time
the SUAB has voted in unison is on some SUAB sponsored
legislation, including the denoting of Honors on diplomas
and the Dead Week/Finals test restrictions. In any case, the
SUAB cannot change the outcome of voting independent
of faculty sentiment since it comprises only one-third of the
Senate and far less in the General Assembly.
comments
michael prothe
Proposed rule changes on University Governance may
change the structure completely. We applaud the intent
and direction of these changes. They are long overdue. But
the arguments for reducing student membership in the
Senate from 18 to 8 are vague and misdirected.
One goal is to reduce the Senate membership from 54
to around 40, providing a less cumbersome size and allow
ing for more in depth discussion on major issues. We
agree. Attendance in the Senate has been somewhat disap
pointing. Although student attendance averages between
85 and 95 percent, faculty attendance ranges between 60
and 75 percent. In fact, many faculty members have
pointed out that this is due in part to the burden placed on
the departments and schools in their effort to fill all 36 seats
(18 each year). It is difficult to select faculty who are both
free on Wednesday afternoons and are willing to devote
the time and energy in the Senate. We question whether
the disproportioned reduction of four faculty and 10
students will lend towards a Senate with better attendance.
The members of SUAB realize the responsibilities of
working with members of the faculty and administration,
and have won praise for their objectivity and responsibility
in dealing with many difficult and important issues. We
work hard, typically in a low profile approach. The SUAB
specifically avoids "headline grabbing" or taking the lead
on "radical" and "ill-advised" legislation. The SUAB
debates major issues before meeting in the Senate to be
better prepared.
To reduce the SUAB to eight members will severely
hamper its effectiveness as a respresentative body. Cur
rently, the SUAB is apportioned across the schools and
departments with each member representing about 900
students. If the SUAB were reduced to eight, we would be
representing nearly 2,000 students each. Our represen
tative system would become awkward with an un
representative combination of departments and schools. It
would also limit our ability to research and study legislation
on behalf of the Senate, handle student grievances, and
carry out other duties currently overseen by the SUAB.
The SUAB is not after greater power. At issue is a con
tinued effective representation for both faculty and
students. As representatives, we work together for the bet
terment of education. Our obligation is to not only con
sider the impact of legislation on the current student body,
but also for the students in the coming years, especially
when issues like semester conversion arise. The decisions
we make together contribute to the life and future growth
of this institution. We cannot be separated in the classroom
and should not be divided in the decisions that affect those
classes. We rely on each other.
The University has been unique in its governance pro
cess. The use of a "town hall" format of discussion and ad
vising to the adminstration will remain with the Assembly.
It is a system of cooperation. Any issue in the Senate may
still be determined in the General Assembly under the pro
posed changes. This is an effective method for faculty,
students, and the adminstration, and must be maintained.
We ask only to continue building upon the qualities of
this University. An adequate proportion of students and
faculty on the Senate will help further the positive goals
and ideals of the University. Unfortunately, the SUAB was
excluded from the task force on governance since it began
formulating the proposed governance rules last fall. We
urge you, however, to support our compromise amend
ments for a student membership of 14 and faculty member
ship of 28. We offer this for the numerous reasons
previously stated. We also believe that the reduction in size
of the Senate and continued ratios of two-thirds faculty to
one-third students will lend towards effective attendance
and representation. Furthermore, when the Senate was
revised in 1951, it consisted of 28 faculty members with at
least one guaranteed representative from each Professional
school and the College of Arts and Sciences. (A clause not
provided for in the new governance document). An ade
quate cross representation of all schools and departments
should continue.
The meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 9 at 3:30 p.m. in 150
Geology will be important for faculty and students alike.
We urge all faculty to attend and vote, and concerned
students should attend as well.
Michael Prothe is chair ol SUAB.
letters
Meditation
In deep sorrow for the death of
our soldiers in Lebanon, in pro
found concern for the spirit of our
people, and in prayer for healing
so many broken hearts, the staff
of the Campus Interfaith Ministry
offers this meditation:
The young soldiers do not
speak. Nevertheless, they are
heard in the still houses; who has
not heard them? They have a
silence that speaks for them at
night and when the dock counts:
They say: We are young. We have
died. Remember us. They say: We
have done what we could but un
til it is finished it is not done. They
say: We have given our lives but
until it is finished no one can
know what our lives gave. They
say: Our deaths are not ours; they
are yours. They will mean what
you make them. They say:
Whether our lives and our deaths
are for peace and a new hope or
for nothing we cannot say; it is
you who must say this. They say:
We leave you our deaths. Give
them their meaning. We were
young, they say. We have died.
Remember us.
Myron Kinberg
Embarrassed
Considering John Healy's arti
cle, "Autzen (Observations,''
published on Oct. 26, I have to ad
mit that much of what he said is
true. However, he didn't have all
the facts straight.
First of all, what the band was
feeling on Saturday was not awe,
but embarrassment because of
the Oregon crowd. The
Washington crowd's response to
the Washington band was in
credibly good, whereas our own
loving fans threw things at us
when we tried to get some spirit
going in the stands. We Oregon
band members spend two and a
half hours a day for three days a
week, plus weekends, to work up
a show and stand music, and the
only thanks we get is empty Coke
cups thrown at our backs.
Second, Healy, you were close
in our annual budget, but you
estimated high. We actually get
$7,900, making us the lowest
funded band in the Pac-10. The
next lowest-funded band has an
annual budget of over $38,000,
and the top band gets more than
$100,000. We are a much smaller
band than Washington's, and
when any band is seated at the top
of the stadium, nobody hears it
but the fans on the other side.
Third, the cheerleaders were do
ing their damnedest, but it's hard
to get a crowd cheering and doing
cheers when the crowd doesn't
care.
I'm glad you wrote this article,
but next time you write an article
on the band or the cheerleaders,
try to get the other side's
viewpoint.
Tim Vian
junior, music education
Mucho macho?
Steve Turcotte's column, "Just
Thinking," in Tuesday's Emerald
should be retitled "Not
Thinking."
In my opinion, the new IM toot
ball program rules are a well
designed and prudent attempt to
interject a degree of control over
certain mindless behavior on the
part of some participants. The
rules are an effort to require more
skill in play rather than a reliance
on brute force alone. These rules
were not introduced without
cause. Myself and other injury
care specialists have been most
distressed with the injury rate
presented in this "limited contact
sport." In the past, many such
contests have degenerated into a
means to vent hostility, aggres
sion, and violent acts reminiscent
of those staged in the Roman Col
osseum in the 1st century A.D.
Full contact football is not to be
played without the use of exten
sive protective equipment such as
that used by professionals and in
tercollegiate teams. Even with
such equipment, serious injuries
sometimes occur. Anyone who
cannot appreciate the danger of
unrestricted contact flag football
has, in my opinion, already suf
fered possible brain damage. If
Turcotte and his disgruntled
friends belie 3 that the new IM
rules make the game "too wim
py," perhaps they should indeed
form their own league that could
promote greater contact. We
could then see once again the
macho forearm fracture, the very
macho ruptured kidney, and 6f
course the beyond macho fracture
of the cervical spine. What lasting
memories they could provide.
Some would say that the
violence exhibited in sports is
simply a microcosmic model of
the violence in society. Society at
tempts to protect itself from
unrestricted violence through the
enactment of laws. IM organizers
are attempting to protect par
ticipants through the enactment
of rules; even those who do not
wish such protection will receive
it. If Turcotte and others find such
rules intolerable, they should find
a sport and circumstance where
brute force may be legally
substituted for skill.
Rick Troxel
clinical instructor, athletic training
Policemen
Pres. Ronald Reagan shouldn't
have invaded Grenada. His own
arguments for entry were not
strong enough to justify overt
military action.
First, the United States in
filtrated Grenada with the aim of
protecting its citizens. It has been
demonstrated that they were in lit
tle danger, if any. Americans were
allowed to leave Grenada freely;
in effect, our invasion put the
Americans in much more danger
potentially.
Secondly, although the U.S. in
vaded Grenada at the pleas and
demands of the surrounding
countries and to "restore
democracy," it is important that
the U.S. not become combative
policemen of the world.
Thirdly, I don't condone the
vicious killing of Grenada's
former leader, yet the US
shouldn't be sticking its nose into
the internal affairs of other coun
tries, especially when the action is
based on "what if" presumptions
rather than fact.
The future rebuttal in the
United Nations from both
Grenada and U.S. allied countries
will be vigorous. Cuban public
opinion of the U.S. will become
increasingly anti-American after
their "construction workers'"
heroics. It remains to be seen how
countries such as Russia will use
this to their benefit through
propaganda.
Brad Simpson
Updated list
How does it strike your cons
cience to be a citizen of a country
which economically and militarily
supports fascist regimes which
currently or in the near past have
tortured arid murdered tens of
thousands of men, women and
children?
Let's get an updated list. El
Salvador, Guatamala, Chile,
Nicaragua under Somoza, and
what do you know, the Pol Pot
Regime of Cambodia. I'd better
update that last death count to
millions. It's probably a good idea
we supported the Khmer Rouge
freedom fighters though — they
said they were against our old and
evil enemies, the Vietnamese.
That's what really counts. These
trophies of progressive govern
ment should be remembered for
years to come by all the oppressed
peoples of the world Let's all join
hands with Henry Kissinger and
bring a democratic dictatorship
back to those Nicaraguans who
have strayed from our loving
arms.
Our administration has truly
revealed its belligerent and
violent sense of world diplomacy.
What amazes me is their
sometimes incredibly shrewd
methods of achieving certain
ends. (Did I forget to give any
credit to the CIA?) The KAL flight
007 leaves some interesting od
dities on which to ponder. Let's
take a good positive look at the
outcome. We got defense con
tracts for the B-1 bomber, the Per
shing, cruise, and MX missiles,
nerve gas, the Stealth bomber,
and a stronger position for the
deployment of missiles in Europe.
What does all this mean? It
means this country's reputation as
well as security is going straight to
hell because of its current leaders'
military fanaticism, corporate
greed, and support of Third World
fascism. Unless our foreign policy
is based on some sense of realism
and true good will, is spite of
"God being on our side," like the
Titanic, we'll suffer the
consequences.
Gerry Rempel