EDITORIAL Divisiveness at vote brings flaws to light Faculty and students should be embarrassed by their behavior at Wednesday's University Assembly meeting. Following the assembly's vote to reconsider a revision to the race, gender and non-European studies requirement, the assembly began hearing and voting on several amend ments. The assembly passed an amendment to broaden the requirements of the first of two proposed courses from dealing only with African-Americans. Asian-Americans. Native Americans and Utinos/Chicanos to including all "racial/othnic minority groups in the U.S.A.” It was then that things turned ugly. Students attending the meeting stormed out while shouting profanities at the assembly. It should be pointed out that this handful of students is in no way representative of the student body as a whole. fudging by the low turnout at Wednesday s multlcul tural curriculum support rally, many students at the University are at least apathetic about the requirement, if not opposed to being given the burden of another requirement. While an effective multicultural curricu lum is ossontial to a liberal arts education, the concerns that arise with the addition of further requirements can not la* ignored. A speaker at the assembly criticized the group for wor rying about the financial impact of the revised require ment, tolling the assembly that it should concern itself rather with students’ futures. But what do students believe is more important to their futures: The benefit gained by taking one addition al required class, or the potential cost of the requirement, which could eventually load to a greater tuition Increase? More than likely it’s the latter. Perhaps the most embarrassing part was the reaction of associate professor Robert Proud foot, who stormed out of the meeting after loudly accusing the assembly of tak ing away bis voice. This is far from appropriate behavior for someone who is perceived as a role model by some students, and reflects very poorly on the image of facul ty at the University, Both Proudfoot and associate professor Sumi Cho alluded to another troubling aspect of the requirement before it was amended. Proudfoot complained the amendment "lumped (Native Americans) together with everyone else.” Cho claimed the reason the requirement was exclusive to the study of only four racial groups was because those groups have suffered more prejudice than others. This typo of selective victimization and competitive suffering indicates that the requirement's result will be to facilitate separatism, not multiculturalism. It should also bo considered extremely offensive to members of minority groups not represented in the "Big Four." To tell a race of people, "you have been oppressed, but we have been oppressed more so we deserve preferential treatment" is exactly the kind of irresponsible thinking that has resulted in the quagmire facing Israel and the Palestinians. Both groups have suffered historical oppression, but both groups believe each has suffered more than the other. Thoir solution? Shoot at each oth er. The only reason there is so much confusion between the two classes is because in many people's minds it's difficult to distinguish between a race and an ethnic group. Fortunately, the assembly took a step in the right direction Wednesday when it moved away from the pro posed curriculum that was before it. Oregon Daily Emerald Ifw Oagc*1 E ma«J»y duong tha jchoc* y«*< and tudJday and thutjday duimg tha jummar by tha Oagon Daily Em«(»ld Putx.jn.ng Co me a! Ift» UnwwMy ol Oagon. Eugana. Oagon Tha fmatakJ opaiaura maapandantty ol the Ovvaijrty «nrh often at Su«e 300 ot tha Em Mamonal IXwjn and >» a mamtftw ol tfta Aaaoemtad P'a» tha Emerald v*»5 JansM'’ D*v» OwtomMu Cauey *nd»»on Attocou Editor*: Ba’e> Stud&nt Government Act * t'es Da'atyn Tupp* Commuter Co*mo Po^n«. «ph*r IdhoHioniMmnmratiOff Hew, SUM CWK *• 1»- MaM Orrsje- JuMm Brown. Sa-.i1' Ca'« Mog 0**o«. Knr^onr f«n*> Mage. T**u Havanp Babecc.1 M»«fl $!*v« M • i K*v Mosi>w. T '• < Mar.« T-.wa Now f ‘*- Shaw Enc* S«wa»n**» Ma' :■•' Sa«• _ (DWMMMuxjM COMMENTARY Are athletic fee cuts reasonable? Athletic funding cut is more than fair By Neil Sunnell Sludunt interest* have l>een poorly served by the Tuesday, May 4 Emerald editorial that was critical of the Incidental Fee Commit tee's decision to allocate $35,000 less in student incidental fees to the athletic department. If the Emerald had read the department's bud get, it would have learned the department's bud get is more than $10 million, not $1 04 million. If the Emerald had bothered to get some fact*, it would understand that students paid for 12,000 football tickets they did not use this year 1 must say I was rather impressed the Emerald got one fact correct, indeed, the IFC's most recent cut is the fourth in five years. According to ath letic director Rich brooks, these cuts have totaled about $200,000. If the Emerald did some simple math, it would find that all of the cuts during the past four years total less than 2 percent of the department's operating revenue for one year As for the assertion that the IFC should not he making decisions affecting large numbers of stu dents and that such questions should be put to a vote: Welcome to the world of representative democracy. Get used to it. The IF'C is charged with the responsibility of allocating approximately $4.7 million in student fees. Indeed, the athletic department could have put this matter to a vote of the student body last month. Although this may be an option for next year, it is loo late for that course of action now. The issue is not a question of greed It is a ques tion of supply and demand. University athletics tain only charge what customers are willing to pay. The fact is that 18 percent fewer people on aver age (not |ust students) attended football games fall term. As to the assertion that the athletic department has the prerogative to be as money hungry as it wants, we all have that same prerogative. Unfor tunately. the athletic department, like many of us, does not have the resources to sate an endless hunger. The athletic department made the same threats it is making now. It is wrong for the Emerald to pressure the student government to fund the ath letic department according to its analysis of the situation. Furthermore, students should not Ik? misled by the faulty arguments forwarded by the Emerald. Where was the Emerald when these issues sur faced’ As far as I know, the Emerald has not main* Turn to CUTS, Page 3 Athletic department cannot sustain cuts By Sandy Walton As the result of a general election ballot measure in the spring of 1987, the Inci dental Fee Committee provides an annual direct subsidy to the Department of Intercolle giate Athletics for all women’s sports, co-ed sports, and men's sports except football and men's bnskett>a!l. In consideration for this support, students receive 6.098 tickets for football, 3,523 tickets for men's basketball, the locations for both of which are stipulated in the contract, and unlimited admission to all other athletic events. When submitting the budget for the 1993-9-1 fiscal year to the IFC. the athletic department did not request an increase in dollars, did not request the restoration of any previous cuts, nor has it ever asked for any changes in student ticket num bers or location. However, the IFC and ASUO recommended a cut of S3S.000. marking the fourth straight year the budget has been reduced. The budget was previously cut $40,000 in 1990 91. $57,450 in4991-92 and $54,566 in 1992-93. The time for seating changes liiay have arrived. The cumulative effect of these cuts is enor mous. The IFC support in 1987-88 accounted for 77 percent of subsidized expenses for which it was earmarked, but now covers only 46 percent. IFC funding was 12.9 percent of the total budget but now is only 7.8 percent. The total incidental fee in 1987-88 was about $75 per student per term, of which athlutics received about $25. The incidental fee is current ly about $107 per term, of which athletics receives $22. During these same six years, tuition has increased 104 percent and 113 percent for in state and out-of-state respectively. Salaries and wages have increased almost 20 percent. Travel has risen more than 15 percent. Had the public bought these same seats, the market value would have been $1,238 million in 1987-88 and $1,717 million in 1992-93 Public ticket prices have risen 19 percent for football and 20 percent for men's basketball. Dur ing these years, student price support has dropped from 93 percent of the market value in 1987-88 to 60 percent in 1992-93. Despite these cuts and constantly rising expenses, and recognizing the financial difficul ties faced by students, athletics has not reduced the number of tickets nor changed seating loca Tum to SEATS. Page 3