CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL: P.O. BOX 3159
ode@oregon uoregon edu Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: darkwlng.uoregon.edu/-ode
Perspectives
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
MikeSchmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Nicole Krueger
Senate decisions generate controversy
The two votes by the University
Senate were reasonable and
well thought out
▼ ▼ added to die informadon re
ported in the Emerald:
1. Concerning the ASUO motion to extend
the add-drop deadlines: Contrary to Mr.
Unger’s statement, the ASUO did not supply
all the required information. A financial im
pact statement (required by the University
Senate Bylaws) was repeatedly requested
from the ASUO beginning in early Novem
ber, but it was never forthcoming. This is the
reason the motion was not decided in De
"lth regard to the University
Senate meeting on Jan. 14, the
following points should be
A SENATE COMMENTARY
cember. The impact statement that finally ac
companied the motion was kindly provided
to the ASUO by the Office of Academic Af
fairs on the day of the meeting, but the ASUO
apparently could not support it, However,
had the Office of Academic Affairs not sup
plied that statement, the motion would not
have been returned to the floor at all.
2, Regarding the amendment to the add
drop motion, which changed the proposed
dates from the original 13 (drop) and 15 (add)
to eight (drop) and 10 (add): Contrary to Mr.
Miner’s accusation that the "faculty won’t
lose their pride and compromise,” I would
offer that the senators may have felt that the
amended deadlines, likewise, need to be well
researched in terms of both financial impact
and standards of teaching, and that the
amendment was proposed too late in the
meeting to be thoroughly debated. As Miner
himself well knows, there are mechanisms in
the legislative process to return issues to the
floor. I seriously doubt that pride is the issue
here.
3, Regarding the double-counting motion
passed by the Senate: Mr. Miner was quoted
by the Emerald as saying, “This is going to
make students take another term to gradu
ate.” A full analysis reveals that for most stu
dents the change will simply reduce their
elective credits by 12 and will result in no in
crease in total credits whatsoever. For those
few students who may need to add credits,
since the average carrying load of our under
graduate students is 14.75 credits per term,
the new legislation will mean that they may
have to carry 18 credits for more terms
(which is not an overload) in order to fulfill
their requirements. It is not anticipated that
this change will require students to spend an
extra term at the University.
I hope that the above information provides
Emerald readers with a better understanding
of the debate which occurred on Jan. 14. The
University Senate is and will continue to be a
legislative body which respects all of its
members and seeks fair and open debate on
the issues which come before it.
Ann Tedards is the president of the University
Senate. Her views do not necessarily represent
those of the newspaper
——i I lllll I imiw.wh | —
Faculty interested in all
ASUO officers' comments in the Emerald
claim that faculty opposition to extending the
add-drop deadlines at the University Senate was
motivated by self-interest (ODE, Jan. 15 and 16).
Is it self-interested for faculty to be concerned
about students’ access to required courses and
their ability to fulfill degree and major require
ments in a timely fashion? Is it self-interested for
faculty to object to students coming into classes
after missing the first fifth (or in the original pro
posal 30 percent) of the course, then floundering
as they try to catch up with readings, make up
missed assignments, etc.? Perhaps it is self-inter
ested for faculty to care about the likely financial
impacts of more drops and lower average carry
ing loads on our state assistance, but I’ve always
thought that s*udents, too, had a strong interest
in maintaining the solvency of the University.
Unfortunately, with this issue the ASUO has
chosen to appeal to students’ immediate percep
tion of self-interest at the expense of considering
their longer-term interest in access to courses,
timely completion and a coherent education in a
financially stable university. Student government
this year has been pursuing an active and largely
praiseworthy agenda, but it’s time to take the
add-drop extension off the table and get back to
constructive measures.
Daniel Pope
Associate history professor
AH EMERALD EDITORIAL
The University Senate
risks dividing faculty
from the students, whose
support is needed
goals, and at times the three
groups seem incapable of agree
ing.
Ideally, of course, all three
groups should be able to cooper
ate. After all, we all want to im
prove the quality of education and
services being offered at the Uni
versity.
The reality of this year, howev
er, has often been anything but
compromise. The ASUO and oth
er student groups have frequently
found themselves at odds with
University administrators due to
competing visions of the school’s
future. Often, these battles have
been waged over administrative
plans to raise funds.
Until last week, however, it
seemed that student groups and
faculty members were on consid
erably more common ground. For
example, both student and faculty
groups have opposed fluid-raising
efforts that rely upon money
made through questionable corpo
2A Oregon Daily Emerald Tuesday, January 2
'niversity politics are
complicated. Students,
faculty and administra
tors all have different
rate practices.
At a more general level,
students and faculty clearly have
a lot to gain through cooperation.
Both ought to be more concerned
about the quality of education of
fered — be it through higher facul
ty salaries, smaller class sizes or
increased academic resources —
than about cost cutting and corpo
rate pandering.
Unfortunately, faculty represen
tatives on the University Senate
missed a crucial opportunity to
strengthen ties with students. The
Senate rejected an ASUO propos
al to extend the add-drop dead
line during which students can
change classes. In addition, the
Senate approved a proposal that
will prevent students from “dou
bling up" on credits, or using a
degree requirement such as a for
eign language to also fill a general
education requirement such as
arts and letters.
This decision was flawed at two
levels. First, both votes will hurt
some students. Second, the votes
alienated the ASUO and students,
making it more difficult for the
faculty to gain student support for
other causes.
By not extending the add-drop
deadline, the Senate missed a
chance to fix the registration sys
tem. Currently, rules concerning
1,1998
full
rlaccac
&
en
wait lists
and increasing
class sizes are vague
and often ignored. t
Admittedly, the ASUO
proposal, both as submitted and
as amended, did little to solve this
problem. Senate arguments
against the proposal, however,
highlighted the need for reform. If
faculty members are worried
about students being behind in a
class because they enter late, it
shouldn’t matter whether that en
try is one or two weeks after the
beginning of the term. Instead, it
should suggest that the process of
registering late for a class must be
changed.
That change, of course, would
be more necessary if the deadline
to drop classes was extended. As
it happens, extending that dead
line makes sense. One week is not
long enough to see how a class fits
into a busy academic schedule.
Faculty members are worried that
a few students leaving or entering
their class might affect lesson
plans or even funding.
Instead, instructors should
strive to ensure that their classes
gage
students
and that the
Mjgs_„ enrolled students
£ ~ up want to be there
and are interested
in the material. This
will help guarantee numbers re
main high enough to ensure state
funding, and it will improve the
learning process by letting stu
dents focus on material that is im
portant to them.
Similarly, banning “doubling
up” might force students into cer
tain classes faculty deem impor
tant or keep high numbers (and
high state funding) for a little
longer because of excess require
ments placed upon students. In
the long run, though, such a move
does not improve the quality of
education offered.
If faculty want to broaden the
educational requirements, those
changes should happen at the lev
el of major requirements or be
cause students are made to be in
terested in a range of engaging
subjects. The Senate proposal
won’t improve education by mak
ing students take classes they
don’t want to sit through.
Worse, the stu
dents most likely affected
are those in specialized fields
such as art, music and architec
ture, in which majors usually take
fewer general education require
ments. These students already
work harder than most and often
spend extra time in school as it is.
The real goal of the University
Senate should be to improve the
quality of education being offered.
This requires classes that appeal
to students, educational standards
that are fair and engaging, and
academic policies that allow stu
dents to evaluate their workload
and focus their efforts. It also re
quires better faculty pay, easier
tenure and reasonable class loads.
If the faculty want those last
items, however, they will need
the support of students. That sup
port could have been increased by
recognizing the legitimate con
cerns expressed by the ASUO
over requirements and registra
tion deadlines. Instead, senators
missed an opportunity to show
they care about students and the
quality of education offered inside
the classroom.
This editorial represents the opinion
of the Emerald editorial board Re
sponses may be sent to ode@ore
gon.itoregon.edu