opinion
Commission finds aid
shifting from needy
This country's ideal of an egalitarian educational system has
apparently been usurped by a "quiet, unintended shift of atten
tion and funding” away from programs helping students from
poor and lower-income families, according to a recent report
issued by the National Commission on Student Financial
Assistance.
In testimony heard by the House Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Kenneth Ryder, president of Nor
theastern University and member of the commission, said that
unless this trend is checked the country will "drift into becom
ing a country where only the wealthy can be healthy and wise."
The commission was presenting their findings following a
two-year study of student-aid issues. The study is needed for
guidance by the House and Senate as they consider legislation
to revise and extend student-aid programs before the Higher
Education Act expires in Sept. 1985.
Ryder noted recent developments that have reduced federal
support for the neediest students. And according to the com
mission, inflation has reduced the value of financial aid rewards
to the neediest students, while subsidies to middle-income
students have increased.
Ironically, the grants are designed to aid the neediest
students. The availability and amount of individual grants have
diminished in proportion to an increase in spending for loans.
It's a deficiency in the program that impacts poor and lower
income students. To alleviate this problem, the commission
recommended funds for grants be increased to needy students
and work progams and private sector aid be emphasized.
While the commission made note of the problem with the
neediest students not being addressed by financial aid pro
grams, they found "no compelling reason to radically change
the current system."
Certainly, no "radical" change is needed, but improvement
is indeed drastically needed. The vastness of the financial aid
bureaucracies with states, private banks and the federal govern
ment all staking-out various territories, really needs some tinker
ing to make the machine more responsive to the needs of in
dividual students.
A strong federal commitment to financial aid is essential to
the concept of educational opportunities for all.
Stop wasting time,
abolish the Senate
The University Assembly should abolish the Senate.
The faculty voted Wednesday, in a slim margin, not to give
the University Senate more power to make decisions. The deci
sion of the faculty to retain the town hall type of government is
good. It is a chance to see real democracy at work and to allow
everyone who wants to, to be involved.
But having a Senate is a waste of time The members of the
Senate spent five hours amending and considering the gover
nance system proposal and ended up approving the original
proposal and the amended version of the plan.
The faculty virtually ignored the decisions of the Senate, not
only in the governance issue, but also with important issues like
the ROTC controversy in the past.
Why should the members of the Senate waste their time?
The Senate allows a few people to gain a false sense of
power. The members of the Student University Affairs Board
need to realize how little student representation they have.
Sure, they comprise one-third of the Senate. But the Senate
is worthless. And 18 students compared to 970 faculty — even to
the 150 or so faculty who show up at meetings — does not seem
especially powerful.
The Assembly should establish a rules committee to deal
with issues that need clarification or research before the entire
assembly meets. The committee should pass no judgment on
the motion, but simply provide information to the faculty and
SUAB members.
The Senate is a symbol of bureaucracy. Slash it and slash
some red tape.
Oregon daily . _
emerald
The Oregon Dady Imeraki is published Monday through F n
day except during exam week and vacations; by the Oregon Daily
Fmerald Publishing Co.. *1 the University of Oregon, fugene. OR.
77401
The Finer aid operates independenlly of the University with
offices on the third floor of the |rh Memorial Union and is a
member of the Assoc lated Press
News and Editorial
Display Advertising and liwnm Us ITI1
r i-j rfmrtiu«Mi hga 4 14 1
’ y t tiesvjl ’e — r-« w a
Production UHUt
Or datum kdfelJI I
Page 2, Section A
fdttot
Managing (dHw
News I did »
AkUtlUK News (dilor
fditorial Pjgr I dilor
Photo f dilor
Spoils I dilor
Siddinn (dilor
I nlertammenl t dilor
Assistant I ntcrlammenl I dilor
Ntghl I dilor
Amim iale I dilor i
Higher (dm 41 mo
Depart mrnis ind Schools
Student Government
IriHurrs
PolllMs .
( i immunity
(.retrial Stall
Advertising Mmiurr
CUmlM'd Advertising
Ptodui I Kin MdiMfjrr
C onlroller
Debbie Howlett
Sjndy lohnslone
Funk Shaw
Brenda Thornton
Cod (ernakJ
Dave Kao
Doug levy
lohn Mealy
Angela Allen Morgan
Kim Carlson
(rank Shaw
Doug- Nash
Melissa . Mad in
lim Moore
loan Herman
Brooks Darell
Michele Matassa
Darlene Core
Sally OI|ar
Victoria Koch
lean Ownbey
vHmo) SGa&aYASIR,' HftlD..?'
If vou care, view The Day After
This Sunday ABC television will show one of the
most controversial — and important — movies ever
presented: The Day After. It should be viewed by all
students and citizens concerned about the threat of
nuclear war — and by all those who haven't yet
become concerned.
comments
sherri schultz
The film portrays the effects of a nuclear war on
the inhabitants of Lawrence and Kansas City.
The war begins when Soviet troops invade
Western Europe after NATO deploys American cruise
and Pershing II missiles there. NATO uses tactical
nuclear weapons to repel the troops, and the conflict
escalates into an all-out nuclear war between the
superpowers.
The film is devastating. People should see it with
their families or friends and discuss their feelings
afterward, or come to the open viewing at 8 p.m.
Sunday in the Forum Boom.
The film is more than a step toward "imagining
the unimaginable." It is a horror movie like no other
because after it is over, we cannot comfort ourselves
with the thought that "it's just a movie."
NATO really does plan to deploy cruise and Per
shing II missiles in Europe — beginning in just two
weeks. The men Pres. Ronald Reagan charged with
negotiating a treaty to limit that deployment have,
thus tar, failed completely.
NATO's policy really is that it will not rule out in
itiating use of nuclear weapons in Europe. Despite
repeated overtures from the Soviet Union to sign a
mutual no first use pledge, NATO has consistently
refused to modify its policy, fin June, 1982, the USSR
finally announced unilaterally that it would never be
the first to use nuclear weapons.)
Finally, and perhaps most dangerously, NATO's
— and the Reagan administration's — policies really
are based on the belief that nuclear war can be
limited and controlled. Expert studies by strategists
and psychologists have concluded that even the use
of a few nuclear weapons would lead to an all-out
nuclear war, fust as it does in The Day After. Yet the
Reagan defense department is currently following a
Guidance Plan leaked to the press (Eugene Register
Guard, fan.20) which calls for the United States to
develop the capability to fight, control, and win
"protracted" nuclear wars of up to six months'
duration.
The Day After poses no solution to the nuclear
arms race, nor a way to avoid the dreadful scenario it
portrays. This is our responsibility. We must use the
University's tremendous resources to educate
ourselves, join with others who are concerned, and
translate our knowledge into concrete and effective
political action. Transforming the despair we feel
after viewing The Day After into such positive actions
is our best means of ensuring that such a day will
never come to pass.
Sherri Schultz is a member of Students for a
Nuclear Free future and is ASUO executive assistant.
letters
Smokescreen
When has an individual con
stituted a group? In a recent
Emerald editorial, it says, "The
EMU rent question is an obvious
attack on OSPIRG by the same
group that took them before the
Constitutes Court." I brought
OSPIRG before the court and
handled the case myself.
As for the Emerald's claim about
a "smokescreen," the reason it is
"wholly transparent" is because
there is no smokescreen. I raised
the question of OSPIRG paying
rent during the court hearing
because the group is a non-profit
corporation and because n seem
ed to be conduc ting business this
summer when it collected dona
tions during the canvassing
project.
After hearing about my asser
tions, some EMU Board members
decided a policy was needed to
handle discrepancies of who
should pay rent. The Emerald pays
rent, and the Oregon Commen
taUn wiM be paymg rent lor its of
fice space. The criterion used to
charge these two newspapers
now must be reconciled with and
compared to the Student Projects,
Inc and OSPWG.
The Emerald's implication that I
conspired with Incidental Fee
Committee member Marc Spence
and EMU Board Chariman Dan
Cohen is amusing. Spence and I
disagree on most policy issues,
and, in fact, Spence told me he
wished I never had raised the
OSPIRG question As for the
Emerald's contention that Cohen
spoke with me in August, he
spoke with the Commentator
publisher. I have not seen or
spoken to Cohen since last spring.
The issue has taken a life of its
own without my prodding.
Conspiracy theories simplify
complex questions, but these
theories usually fail to explain
such questions adequately or
accurately.
Richard Burr
editor, Oregon commentator
Crystal ball
Why does the Emerald make so
many factual errors and write so
many absurd statements in every
editorial about the ASUO Ex
ecutive, Incidental Fee Committee
and EMU Board?
First, the implication that any
Oregon Commentator staff
member other than Richard Burr
was in any way involved in Burr v.
OSPIRG is totally erroneous. Nor
has the paper endorsed the idea
that OSPIRC pay rent, although
some staff members think it
should, or asked Cohen to ad
dress the question.
Second, it is no mystery why
Oregon Commentator received
office space. My understanding is
that Oregon Commentator was
the only group that wanted office
space, that wanted Room 203. All
other groups wanted other
spaces, the Emerald apparently
abhores efficiency.
Third, Cohen was not informed
of the Commentator by Editor
Richard Burr in August. They
agree they haven't spoken to each
other since spring term. And it
Cohen in August assumed as fact
the idea of a new publication on
campus, which has been con
sidered for years and tried before,
I only can commend him for his
confidence in fellow students and
his foresight, or ask him where he
keeps his crystal ball. The final
decision to publish the Commen
tator was not made until the se
cond week of October.
I don't deny that Cohen and I
are friends, but I, as a former
Emerald ASUO associate editor,
state emphatically that Cohen did
nothing suspicious or unethical in
handling EMU Board business ad
dressed by the editorial. Thus, I
would rather have a friend like
Dan Cohen rather than a "friend’
like Debbie Howlett.
Dane Claussen
publisher, Oregon commentator
Friday, November 18, 1983