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