Thursday, April 24. 198(5
Eugene, Oregon
Volume 87, Number 138
r
University seeks funds
for ‘superior’ programs
By Andrew LaMar
Of Ihr hmrr«IH ’ , • * . ; .
University officials submitted a, request to the
chancellor's office last week for an additional $.1.2 million
from the state Legislature to fund Centers of Excellence at the
i 'diversity
The Centers of Excellence program is designed to iden
tify and reward superior academic ureas at the state's eight
public colleges and universities.
Officials requested $5 million for the program two years
ago. which was eventually whittled down to $2.4 million by
the State System, the governor and the legislature for the
1985-87 biennium „
But liecause of the shortfall of lottery profits, the program
will receive only about $1.7 million of the $2.4 million
allocation.
"What we're looking at here is the continuation of the
Centers of Excellence program that was begun two years
ago." said John Moseley, the University vice president for
research and author of the request.
The new request calls for about $1.2 million for the
materials, optical and computer sciences. $709,000 for
biotechnology, about $570.(MM) for a graduate program in in
ternational business and almut $204.(MM) for high-energy
physics.
In addition, about $215,000 would be allotted to a
geothermal research program, about $211.(MMl for the ar
chitecture school computer graphics program, about
$l(M).(M)0 for the Advanced Science and Technology Institute
and about $71,(MM) for the Pine Mountain Observatory in
Bend.
University officials also are requesting about $d million
to fund three existing areas of study and to create three*
centers of study.
The program improvement request calls for upgrading
undergraduate education, the law school and the American
studies program while establishing a Canter for Asian and
Pacific Studies, a Center for Cognitive Study and a Center for
Scientific: Study of Decision Making.
The request exceeds Chancellor William Davis's larget
figure by more than $4(M).(MM). but Davis characterizes these
figures as only loose guidelines.
"If (Moseley) has good reason to go over that, it's fine."
Davis said, but he added that all of the requests from the state
colleges and universities will have to la* reviewed before he
decides if the request is excessive.
Pinckney asks court to nullify
Athletic Department measure
By Sian Nelson
, CM Ihf* Kmrrald
ASUO President Lypn Pinckney says the
Athletic Department violated election rules and is
asking the Constitution Court to dismiss any
votes for Ballot Measure 11. the Athletic
Department-sponsored measure. Pinckney is sub
mitting a written request to the Constitution
Court today.
I'he Athletic Department is not a member of
the ASIJO or an ASUO administrative body, such
as the Incidental Pee Committee or the Student
Senate^ Therefore, it cannot have access to the
|H!tition process or enjoy the privileges of the
Constitution Court; Pinckney writes.
" Because of I he important implications (of
allowing the Athletic Department to have access
to the liallot). it puts students at a risk ior funding
the EMU, Counseling Center or any other depart
ment” should they decide to list; the referendum
process, Pinckney says.
The Athletic Department should seek fun
ding through the I PC. she writes.
Under the IFC Guidelines, hearings on
Athletic Department funding requests shall be
held at a time mutually convenient for both par
ties. Bypassing the I PC hearing process would
violate the guidelines, she slates in the request.
Ballot Measure 11 violates the ASUO election
rules, the ASUO Constitution. IP'C Guidelines,
state law and University policy. Pinckney writes.
Chris Voelz, associate athletic director, says
Pinckney's accusations are invalid. Instead, the
student government is merely rehashing issues
already discussed at an April 17 Constitution
Court hearing, she says.
The student government is finding it’s “not
able to control and exert undue influence over the
Athletic Department." Voelz says. She calls the
whole situation "a royal setup.”
Measure 11 asks for a 49 percent increase in
student incidental fees, which would raise stu
dent fees from $700,000 to $1,179,241 for
women's athletics for the 1980-87 academic year.
Supporters gathered 1.100 signatures to place the
measure on the ballot.
Pinckney says sbe was spurred into filing a
grievance after Athletic Department adver
I.ynn Pinckney
tisements were published in the Oregon Daily
F me raid April 23-24 paid for by the Duck Athletic
Fund.
Flections rule fi. 10 states ballot measure cam
paigns "shall not accept contributions from
organizations not funded, registered or recogniz
ed at the University of Oregon.”
The Duck Athletic Fund is the title of an ac
count of the University of Oregon Foundation, a
non-profit corporation, which is neither a
registered nor recognized student organization.
The Athletic Department also violated elec
tion rules when it used the McArthur Court mar
quee to promote Ballot Measure 11 April 16. says
Cheryl Pellegrini, IFC vice chairwoman.
Pinckney also charges that the University's
educational atmosphere has been compromised
by instructors who have used class time to cam
Continued on Page 7
Environmentalists urged to dispute economic arguments
By Chris Nurmi
Of I hr fmrrald
In past environment.!! controversies,
environmentalists have l>een their own
worst enemies In-cause they believe tin
economic argument is always against
then>. said Dr. |an Newton, senior
economist of Environmental Science
Associates.
Newton discussed the relation of
economics to environmental ethics
Wednesday night as part of the Survival
Center's Earthweek celebration. The
theme of this year's Earthweek is
“Oregon's Economy. Oregon's
Environment.”
1
L
I)r. fan Newton
Newton formerly worked in Oregon
with environmental activist groups that
opposed the spraying of pesticides on
forests in the Coast Range. She currently
is working in San Francisco with citizen
action groups attempting to stop the con
struction of high-rise buildings in the
city’s downtown area.
About 30 people showed up to hear
Newton's presentation. In which she
drew many parallels between the high
rise building issue and other en
vironmental issues.
"At first the building of high-rise of
fices is justified in strictly economic
terms." she said. "Any attempt to put an
end to herbicide use elicited the same
argument in justification."
The main parallel among most en
vironmental issues is that "once the en
vironmentally destructive act is propos
ed, and economic arguments have been
given to justify it, people often accept
the economic figures as a given."
Therefore labor tends to fall in line on
the side with the economic argument
because of the jobs issue. Newton said.
"This results in environmentalists fin
ding themselves facing the rare coalition
of labor in bed with big business."
Any opposition to business, especially
in a troubled economic time, results in a
bad reputation and environmentalists
often are labeled as idealists, she said.
The final parallel drawn bv Newton
concerned the local media involvement
in environmental issues. The media tend
to support the proposed action based on
the economic argument without any in
vestigation of the figures used, she said.
Newton gave examples from the high
rise building issue in San Francisco. The
building boom that has occured there in
the past It) years was justified on four
economic grounds, she said. Officials
claimed the new office space would br
ing San Francisco more revenue, in
creased housing availability, improved
downtown transportation, and would
generally prompt employment and
economic development.
The Bay Guardian. an alternative
newspaper in the city, did an in-depth
study of the economics of the high-rise
development and found the city ending
up in net deficit for what was supposed
to be a boom, she said. The Guardian's
investigation found that every economic
argument used to support the high-rise
boom did not hold water.
“What has resulted is probably the
broadest coalition in San Francisco since
the general strikes of the 1930s, suppor
ting an end to the high-rise develop
ment." she said.