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