Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (July 30, 1996)
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective I ! In light of the recent bombings, have your perceptions of safety in America changed? Let us know. EDITORIAL Higher education budget proposal in need of support ■ OUR OPINION: Students need to voice their support of the proposal to increase state funding for higher education Students have been given an oppoi tunity to tighten the reigns on ris ing tuition by writing or calling state legislators to inform them of the importance of funding Oregon’s uni versities and colleges. The state Board of Higher Education has proposed a budget for the 1997-99 biennium that would freeze tuition and increase faculty salaries. The plan, approved by the board July 19, seeks a < percent increase in funding from the state. However, this is just a proposal. Gov. John Kitzhaber still needs to review the request and decide how it fits into his state budget plan. From there, the legis lature will hash it out and vote in June of 1997. It is crucial that the governor and leg islators understand the importance of this 7 percent funding increase. This proposal provides legis t's. - lators the perfect opportunity to help rebuild higher education in Oregon after it was severely weakened by Ballot Mea sure 5. Since the passage of the property tax limitation law in 1990, Oregon universi ties and colleges have had to eliminate key programs, drastically increase tuition, recruit more out-of-state stu dents and freeze or reduce budgets in almost all departments within the sys tem. Resident tuition has risen 66 percent, non-resident tuition rose uu percent. Overall, 90 programs were cut from the eight higher edu cation institu tions in Oregon. Some educators estimate a 40 percent increase in the student population by the year 2000, based on the number of students currently enrolled in the state’s public school system. In order to accom modate the projected enrollment and maintain high-quality education, the state is going to have to make a decision to support higher education by increas ing its funding. Students, faculty and administrators play an enormous role in informing these decision-makers that they need to give more financial support to higher education. If nobody lets them know ahead of time how important their sup port is, we have no one to blame but ourselves when they decide to spend ^ the money elsewhere. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald . editorial board. HI5 I UHIUAL rlillrUiilii In November 1990, Oregonians passed a property tax-limitation law with Ballot Measure 5. In 1991-93, the implementation of phase one of Ballot Measure 5 resulted in a revenue loss of $152 million for state universities and colleges. In 1993-95, The second phase of Measure 5 created another revenue loss. In 1995-97, the third phase of Mea sure 5 found schools continuing their search for more cost-effective measures to deal with the loss in state funding. During these times, only 37 percent of the schools’ budgets came from state support. For the 1997-99 biennium, the state Board of Higher Education has proposed a 7 percent increase in funds from the state. Source: Oregon Daily Emerald archives Editorial brief: Ballot Measure 5 may have left the University high, but the Oregon Cam paien made sure it didn’t leave it drv The fundraising drive has managed to raise $142 million dollars, two years of ahead of schedule. The Oregon Campaign, a five-year cap ital campaign, kicked off in December 1993 with a goal of raising $150 million for the University. In May 1996, halfway through the timeline, more than 90 per cent of the goal had been raised. Because of the perser-verence of these fundraisers, the University has been able to begin several building pro jects, including the construction of a new Law School building, the remodeling of the School of Jour nalism and Communication’s Allen Hal and the construction of the new athletic indoor practice facility. We applaud their efforts. CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald VOICES “Would you write your legislator about the state Board of Higher Educa tion’s proposed budget?” “Obviously if it affects student, yes, I would defi nitely write a let ter. I think they directly influence the action of politicians.” Matthew H.C. Often Sr., Biology “I don’t know if they would care about my opinion because I am from out of state, but I think it’s really important in any state to keep education affordable.” Katlanne Fulcher Sr., Secondary education in social studies and Spanish LETTERS Bottle bill makes sense This is in response to your article on Tuesday, July 9, about the initiative to expand the bottle bill. Many people would probably agree that if a business pollutes the environment, the business responsible should pay for cleaning it up. Unfortunately, businesses often pass on these costs of doing business onto the public. A prime example is the treatment of containers. Many businesses manufac ture and sell products in containers, but take little responsibility for the disposal of this packaging. These businesses would prefer that the consumers be responsible for the disposal of the packaging. Thus, in the article, Sue McGwire, owner of the Alder Street Market says that we should set up recycling centers. Obviously this puts the main responsi bility for recycling onto the customer. This has been the strategy of businesses opposed to bottle bills. McGwire also complains that the stores get nothing for taking back the bottles and Scotten sug gests steps should be taken to help out the market owners. Manufacturers, dis tributors and retailers of products in con tainers profit from the sale of their products and they should be responsible for the reuse or recycling of the contain ers. Businesses should take responsibili ty because a lot of their packaging pollutes the environment in the form of litter or adding to landfill costs. Why should the public pay these costs? The bottle bill places responsibility on the manufacturer, distributor and retailer, and it works. Recycling rates are three times as high for packaging covered by the bottle bill. Consumers still have some of the responsibility, to return the con tainer to the store (rinsed out, if possible). And when consumers return containers to the stores, they often buy more prod ucts at those stores. Although this is not in the expanded bottle bill, I would further suggest that businesses ought to be required to take back all their packaging. This would have benefits beyond increasing recycling rates. If businesses had to take back all their packaging, maybe they would design packaging that would be reusable or recycled easier, or maybe they would eliminate excess packaging. The bottle bill expansion makes sense for Oregon, it makes businesses responsible for their packaging, and I encourage everyone to support it. Edward Winter Eugene CORRECTION The July 23 ODE article, Tuition freeze may be in future" lists the average faculty salary, adjust ed for a 6 percent increase, at $64,500. Accord ing to the UO budget office, that figure relates to full professors. The true overall average salary for UO professors—full, associate and assis tant—is currently $51,600. Adjusted for a 6 per cent increase, that average would rise to about $54,700. The Emerald regrets this error. The Oregon Daily Emerald is published daily Monday through Friday during the school year and Tuesday and Thursday during the summer by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. A member of the Associated Press, the Emerald operates independently of the University with offices at Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Emerald editor ial board; signed columns represent the opinion of the columnist. The Emerald is private property. The unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. Editor-In-Chief: Steven Asbury Associate Editors: Andrea DeYoung, Kristin Bailey Editorial Editor Tiffany Smith Sports Editor Mark McTyre Copy Editor Tracy Picha Photography Editor Andrew Brackensick On-Line Director Nicholas Stiffler General Manager Judy Riedl Advertising: Becky Merchant, director. Anne Amador, Lee Yen Beh, Nikki Harper, Anne Miller, Trina Shanaman, Rose Soli Production: Michele Ross, manager. Ingrid White, coordinator. Laura Daniel Business: Kathy Carbone, supervisor. Judy Connolly Distribution: John Long Classified: Tara Gauftney, manager. Newuoom.(541)346-5511 Dlspley Advertising.(541) 346-3712 Buslnen Office.(541) 348-5512 Clanilled Advertising.(541) 346-4343
