Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 16, 1997)
CONTACTING US NEWSROOM ADDRESS: (541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald E-MAIL: PO.BOX3159 odeOoregon uoregon.edu Eugene. Oregon 97403 ONLINE EDITION: darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ode SB-! Perspectives EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Doug Irving State schools should share dollars iMJJ JJLlOM If the University kept its tuition money, specialization by state schools would be difficult University President Dave Frohn mayer has a goal. He wants to re form the way tuition money finds its way into the University budget. Currently, the money paid by University students for tuition goes into a big pool, along with money from the state's other universities. This money, along with addi tional revenue from the state, is then redis tributed to the state’s universities. Frohnmayer doesn’t like this system, and his complaints are not without justifi cation. The University receives the small est per-student share of this money, despite being the largest school in the state and of fering a vast range of programs. “I feel this has to be changed," Frohn mayer said. The change he would like to see is one he said is also being examined by Gov. John Kitzhaber: all state schools would keep their tuition money to spend on their own programs. Such an idea has the advantage of seem ing perfectly logical on the surface. After all, if the University has 17,000 tuition paying students, why shouldn’t those stu dents receive the academic benefits their iiiuney i.an uuy: Unfortunately, the situation isn’t that simple. The University is not a private in stitution, looking out for its own interests and fighting for students with other private institutions scattered across the state, h is a public school, part of the state system of higher education. The University receives state money, and it was created to serve the needs of the Oregon community. Those needs would not be best served by a system in which each institution kept its own tuition money. In order for the entire system to function effectively, individual schools should not be competing against each other for dollars and people. None of this is to say we don't think the University deserves more money. With such a wide variety ot programs, the Uni versity fills a crucial role in the Oregon community and, in order to continue to do so, should receive a healthy share of state funding. The problem is that the University can not and should not fill every academic need in the state. Earlier proposals to re form the higher education system have fo cused on creating specialized programs at different schools, so that Portland State might focus on engineering and Oregon State on computer science. This isn’t to say that basic programs in those areas shouldn't be offered at all schools, but rather students who want to specialize in certain fields will be able to find one well funded, strong program in the state. We think the idea ot specialization needs to be examined further. In many academic areas, the entire state of Oregon is woefully lacking. If our higher education institutions are going to serve the variety of academic needs within the state, as well as recruit quality faculty and students from other states, we need to have strong programs in a wider range of academic interests. The proposal to keep the University’s tu ition money for our exclusive use is that it thwarts efforts at specialization and coop eration. Rather than sharing resources and students with other state institutions, the University of Oregon would be forced to compete with other schools. After all, if we get to keep the tuition money we have, we’ll be more inclined to provide “popular” programs and recruit primarily out-of-state students, thereby in creasing the amount of money the school can spend. No state program will want to provide less popular majors or programs that focus on recruiting less profitable in state and part-time returning students. The purpose of a public higher educa tion system is not to fight for dollars and students; it is to fulfill the needs of the state, offering a range of valuable and need ed educational options. The strength of this system relies upon enhanced cooperation and sharing among state schools, not upon the University hoarding tuition money for its own purposes. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial hoard. Responses may lx sent to ode@orLpon.uoregon .edu Reasoning wrong The premise of the assisted sui cide editorial (ODE, Oct. 14) is correct, but for the wrong reason. In an ideal society there would be no need or reason to legislate so called rights. Members of the so ciety would recognize these rights and adhere to them faith fully and without reservation. But we do not live in a “perfect society” and not everyone re spects or understands the true na ture of the common good. To bring the editors’ premise to its logical conclusion, there should be no legislation regard ing equal opportunity employ ment, medical assistance or food and shelter programs for the poor. There should be no need for prisons, nor law enforcement officials. In a mature society members would be self-regulat ing. I venture to say that experi ence tells us this is not the case. The premise of the editors is flawed because it fails to take into account the fact that with every so-called right there is an inextri cable responsibility. Granting, for the sake of argument, that an in dividual has a right to kill him/herself assumes that both the individual and the society are responsible enough to safeguard that right. But what does this mean? Have we even asked this question? In a culture where chil dren are regularly murdered by adults and other children, where emphasis on individual rights ex cludes the common good, it seems to me that we are not ma ture enough to accept this burden of responsibility. We need time to grow a bit, to understand the full implications of such a right. To speak only of individual rights is to cloud the real issue. So, I say to the editors, the real question is not whether "some one should be able to tell us how to live....” The more appropriate issue is whether we. as a culture, are mature enough to accept the responsibilities implied by an as sisted suicide law. C.J. Renz Associate Pastor, Newman Club Cassini worthwhile I am writing in response to the “Thumbs down” editorial (ODE, Oct. 13) on the Cassini mission. Unfortunately, the writer(s) of this opinion seem to further demonstrate the need for this mission. The Cassini spacecraft will carry about 72 pounds of highly radioactive (though less dangerous than ignorance and hysteria) Plutonium-238 dioxide for generating electrical power. There is indeed a risk of this ma terial being released into the Earth’s biosphere due to an acci dent. I acknowledge this possibil ity. NASA acknowledges this possibility. The opinion state ment that “NASA insists... there is no risk of contaminating the Earth,” is false and might be con sidered slander and/or yellow journalism. NASA and most well respected experts on this subject believe the risk is small and that even in a worst-case scenario, few (if any) people would be in jured. The opinion also calls into question the “need” for the Cassi ni mission. I might contend that there is little or no “need” for many things, including love, reli gion, art, tasty food, music or even living (from a rather abstract point of view, though). However, humans still insist on “needing” these things. Why? It is because it is not forks, knives, jobs, thumbs, or walking upright that separates humans from animals and inani mate objects, it is knowledge, cul ture, love and all those “unneed ed” things that do that. Those "unnecessary” activities are what give meaning to life. They are the essence of our soul. The Cassini mission to the majestic ringed planet Saturn, and its mysterious and enigmatic moon Titan, is not merely a pro ject of robotic exploration. It is a spiritual journey into the mysti cal cosmos, where we not only seek answers to our most funda mental questions (“Who are we?”; “Why are we here?”), but where we define our own an swers to those questions. Sometime during the middle of the next decade, when we are all watching and hearing the infor mation, sights and sounds from other worlds, hopefully we may all come closer to realizing just why this oh-so-fleeting life is worth living at all. Chris Jones Chemistry and computer science Web adds costs I have been following the deci sion to charge for printing and labs closely. As a student who frequently uses the library, this whole fiasco has a large impact on me. One angle that has not been discussed, at least to my knowl edge, is the increased use of the Web in courses. I have been a stu dent here since '93, when the Web was created. During this time, I have seen the involvement of the Web in course curriculum go from “what’s the web?” to “all notes and all assignments being distributed ONLY on the Web.” This change does not trouble me. I think the Web is an excel lent information dissemination medium. However, being re quired to pay to get required as signments is unacceptable. In fact, professors and/or depart ments have printing budgets to cover the cost of reproducing ma terials for the entire class. With these materials now being distrib uted on the Web, these funds would be going unused (or less used). However, I have not seen anyone discuss this. Overall, the combination of the Web and printing materials as necessary should save money, time and resources. However, of floading the financial responsi bility to retrieve necessary class materials from the University to students is unacceptable. The University should simply use the money saved from the printing budgets to bring back free print ing in labs and libraries. Trenton Lipscomb Computer science
