CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541)346-5511 Oregon Daity Emerald
E-MAIL P.O.BOX 3159
ode@oregon uoregonedu Eugene, Oregon 974C3
ONLINE EDITION: www uoregon.edur-ode
Perspectives
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
editorial editor
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Sarah Kickler
Matriculation fee could be unfair
Proposals for a one-time administrative
fee could create financial difficulties
for some students and unfairly
subsidize others
Some people carry hundreds of dollars
around in their wallets. For them, the in
convenience of getting money outweighs
the increased security and interest of a
bank, as well as the temptation to spend money
that comes with having money.
The rest of us go to the ATM.
University administrators want to Fill their
wallets with hundreds of student dollars at
once, rather than collecting the money over the
course of a student’s academic career. Just as
keeping all your money in a wallet or under the
mattress is convenient but poorly thought out,
this new proposal doesn’t make a lot of sense.
According to James Buch, associate vice
president for Student Academic Affairs, the
administration is considering a one-time ma
triculation fee that would replace the cost of
some administrative services (ODE, March 16).
The fee could cover IntroDUCKtion, tran
scripts, degree application and add-drop
penalties.
Exactly which of those services might be
covered remains to be determined, as do sever
al other aspects of the proposal. This lack of
clarity, while understandable, is one of our
concerns about the idea.
While setting a fee for entering freshmen
who will take four years to complete their
schooling might be a simple enough matter, ac
counting for the variety of enrolled students at
the University is far more complex. Some stu
dents take fewer or more years to finish their
education, others transfer experience and cred
its from another school, and still others will
AN EMERALD EDITORIAL
not complete their education at the University.
All of these factors, as well as currently en
rolled students, would have to be accounted
for under a one-time fee system. We find it dif
ficult to believe this could be achieved simply
or equitably.
Equity is a significant concern for us. We
suspect a single matriculation fee would prove
to be unfair not only to those students who en
ter the University in an atypical manner, but
for all students.
If the fee covered such costs as transcript
fees and add-drop penalties, it would violate
the point of instituting such fees originally.
Transcript fees are meant to reflect the materi
als and labor required to produce an official
transcript. Those costs vary dramatically from
student to student because different students
need very different numbers of transcripts.
There is no reason the average student should
subsidize the 20 to 30 transcripts needed by
those applying to graduate schools.
Similarly, the entire student body should not
have to pay the penalty inflicted upon individ
ual students by add-drop fees. The fees are in
place to discourage students from dropping
classes late in the term because of the inconve
nience and educational harm. Spreading those
fees to students who never drop classes late in
the term is unreasonable.
The University may only charge a fee for ori
entation costs. Currently, according to Buch,
students who pay to attend IntroDUCKtion
subsidize other orientation programs. If this is
true, it should be resolved by altering orienta
tion fees. Charging a universal orientation fee
would also be unfair.
Students use different orientation programs
by choice. IntroDUCKtion clearly includes a
large number of services, many of them orient
ed toward first-time college students. Those in
coming students who don’t opt to attend Intro
DUCKtion frequently do so because they don’t
need those services or aren’t inclined to pay for
them.
The ability to pay is also a significant issue.
A one-time fee could cost $250. As ASUO Vice
President Ben Unger pointed out, that’s a lot of
money for many students.
Some of that cost may be off-set, however.
The administration insists that a one-time fee
could be covered by financial aid.
Perhaps that claim is true, but it simply
means aid that could have been used for tu
ition costs will instead go to pay an unfair ad
ministrative fee. The cost would still be unrea
sonably high.
For many students at the University, finding
funding is a difficult task managed from term
to term. These students often deliberately bud
get around administrative costs and avoid fees
and expensive programs such as IntroDUCK
tion. These students would have difficulty
budgeting and raising the high initial fee.
There are certainly times when universal
fees and shared costs are called for, both in the
University system and society as a whole.
However, the majority of administrative fees
that might be covered by a matriculation fee do
not fall into this category.
Students should get to leave their money in
the bank, rather than in administrators’ wal
lets, until the students decide they want to in
cur certain costs.
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald
editorial board. Responses may be sent to
ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Williams rethinks rhetoric
An erstwhile teacher, I am al
ways interested in helping people
learn to think and write well. It is
therefore with pride that I read Bar
ry Williams’ letter (ODE, March 9)
chastising me for having chal
lenged his idea that “homosexual
behavior is unnatural,” part of an
“absurd, perverse movement” or
chestrated by “liberal propagan
da.” My response to Williams’ ini
tial ill-considered polemic (ODE,
Feb. 25) has yielded tangible re
sults in the quality of Williams’
prose, demonstrable to anyone
who compares his two letters.
Gone is the original letter’s clum
sy pseudo-biology as evidence
(Williams’ crude reduction of homo
sexuality to “the wrong devices in
the wrong locations"); squelched,
too, are the ghoulish predictions of
imminent death and eternal suffer
ing for sinners, rendered in the hoari
est cliche (“abomination,” “the
bondage of sin”) that evoked the
comical-pathetic spectacle of the
“prophet” on his soapbox.
Absent, too, are the stylistic pit
falls of the novice writer — the co
pious exclamation points and over
reliance on a rhetorical question
that marred his earlier effort. These
are welcome changes.
Instead, letter No. 2 reveals the
new and vastly improved Williams
letter-writing persona — he of the
identifiable thesis and well-rea
soned argument, coolly exploiting
seeming weaknesses in my earlier
letter and demonstrating a service
able rhetorical style and coherent
main claim. The assertions in letter
No. 2 are OCA party-line perfect,
with their steely intimation of holy
war waged signature by signature,
part of a mission, as Williams char
acterizes it, “to engage ... change
agents in a public dialogue and con
tend for the character of our society
through our legislatures and the ini
tiative process.” I’m not sure that
Williams’ self-portrait of a former
draft-register and organizer of
Yippes who has seen the folly of his
ways and careened into other en
thusiasms is well-considered, but
his second letter does make clearer
the political stakes of his theological
obsessions.
For these changes, I give us both
high marks: Kudos to Williams for
the miraculous transformation of
his prose and to me for having in
spired it.
Brian Whaley
* Graduate student
Drawing Board
Ill
Thumbs
A
TO PEPSI CHAIR
MAN ROGER
ENRICO:
PepsiCo Inc.'s
leader is setting a
good example for
the rest of corpo
rate America by
waiving his salary
and putting the
money into schol
arships for the
company's employ
ees. Whiie Enrico
could do more—
he retains his
bonuses, which last
year totaled $1.8
million—he is sac
rificing a $900,000
salary for an ad
mirable cause. Oth- j
er corporate execu
tives could learn a
valuable lesson
from this—while
business owners
make millions and
take in massive
bonuses for “sav
ing money” by fir
ing workers, the av
erage employee is
watching his or her
real wage tali. If big
business wants
support for Its
goals, the average
American will have
to benefit from
growth.
TO A GEORGIA
SCHOOL:
Soda sure has
been in the news a
lot lately. At a high
school outside of
Atlanta, school offi
cials had planned a
Coke Day to wel
come officials from
the Atlanta-based
soft drink company
as part of a pro
gram co-sponsored
by the school and
Coca-Cola. One stu
dent showed up for
the festivities wear
ing a Pepsi T-shirt.
While representa
tives of Coke and
Pepsi have had a
good time making
jokes about the in
cident, school offi
cials weren't
amused: they sus
pended the 19
year-old senior.
This decision had
little legal basis and
violates the muchr
needed right to free
speech that stu
dents still cling to.