CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL P.O.BOX 3159
odeGoregcn uoregon edu Eugene. Oregon 97403
ONUNE EDITION: www uoregon edu/-ode
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierfcach
NIGHT EDITORS
Sarah Kickler
Teri Meeuwsen
University should place more value in GTFs
After
agreeing
to a raise
for summer
GTFs, the
University
promptly
reduced
the hours
allocated
to summer
positions
t seems that the administration needs to
go back to school. Summer school.
| According to an article in Thursday’s
-A- Emerald, University administrators are
once again using graduate teaching fellows to
save money. This time, the school is reducing
hour estimates for GTFs who won a pay raise
last fall.
When the Graduate Teaching Fellows Fed
eration negotiated its contract with the Uni
versity in the fall, the two sides agreed to boost
summer pay for GTFs to the same level assis
tants earn during the rest of the year. When
the GTFF received a preliminary indication of
the hours summer GTFs will be offered, how
ever, the agreement appeared to have shat
tered.
The University will hold to its pledge to pay
the higher wage, but many departments are of
fering fewer hours, apparently as a way to off
set the higher cost of labor.
Graduate students are sent offers that desig
nate the full-time equivalent value of an assist -
antship. Students are then paid based on that
FTE allotment rather them actual hours. By re
ducing the FTE estimated for many positions,
the University is assuming that summer GTFs
do less work.
The Emerald story quotes Maggie Morris,
vice provost for research and graduate educa
tion, as saying, “The University takes the posi
tion that summer is different.” It seems ad
ministrators have been too busy vacationing
and soliciting corporate funds for new build
ings to notice how wrong that claim is.
If University officials were to check in on
summer school, they would find that summer
classes cover the same amount of material in a
condensed time period. Students earn four
credits in four- or eight-week sessions instead
of the usual eleven weeks.
Presumably, if a class is worth the same
number of credits as during the year, it re
quires a similar amount of work from both stu
dents and instructors. If the University honest
ly believes summer classes carried with them
less work, it should reduce the number of
credits allocated.
Instead, the school is playing more cost-cut
ting games with a union that represents one of
the most underappreciated aspects of the Uni
versity. Reducing the number of hours cuts
GTF pay, but it also risks dropping graduate
students below the minimum number of
hours for union membership. That could pre
vent GTFs from filing grievances to complain
about inaccurate FTE estimates and could
even prevent some GTFs from receiving tu
ition waivers, the most crucial part of any of
fer.
While inexcusably harsh, the University’s
action is not unusual. Fair treatment of GTFs
has never been a priority for higher education
administrators.
Consider the past two years:
Student groups have lobbied hard for a tu
ition freeze without opposition from adminis
trators. These efforts met with success for this
year, locking in-state tuition in place.
Faculty have, justly, complained about low
salaries and have received donations and state
funding to attempt to adjust those salaries to
match national averages.
AN EMERALD EDITORIAL
In addition, administrators have solicited
funding for a number of programs and build
ing improvements, including the controver
sial donations from Phil Knight that were ear
marked primarily for the new law school
building, faculty chairs and a salary increase
for the University president.
Meanwhile, graduate students have not re
ceived a tuition freeze. As the cost of attending
school has risen, the GTFF managed to negoti
ate a slight pay increase in the fall. Even that is
now being offset by reduced hours that are jus
tifiable only by the logic of the bottom line.
It's poor logic at best. While the need to as
sist undergraduate students and faculty is
clear, graduate students are also a crucial as
pect of the University. Reasonable funding of
fers are a key part of recruiting exceptional
graduate students. The arrival of those stu
dents, in turn, helps improve research and the
University’s image as well as placing more
skilled GTFs in the classroom.
The presence of a GTF union on campus is
an important part of ensuring graduate stu
dents receive fair treatment from the Universi
ty. Such unions are present on only a few cam
puses around the nation, although organizing
efforts are taking place at many institutions.
If the GTFF is going to be effective at pro
tecting graduate student interests and indi
rectly the long-term interests of the school, it
deserves more respect from administrators.
Reducing summer hours is a clear violation of
the spirit, if not the letter, of fall contract nego
tiations.
Perhaps the people whose hours need close
scrutiny are University administrators. If they
aren’t busy, we could certainly send them to
summer school.
Let’s just hope their grades depend on those
same overworked and underpaid GTFs the
University is manipulating once again.
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emer
ald editorial board. Responses may be sent to
ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
TO PROPOSALS FOR A NON
PARTISAN LEGISLATURE:
According to a story in The
Register-Guard on April 6,
Springfield Democrat Lee Beyer
plans to introduce a bill in the
Oregon Senate that would ren
der all Oregon legislative races
non-partisan. Just as many local
government races are between
candidates with no officially des
ignated party affiliation, Oregon
legislative seats would now be
filled by names without a party
platform—or agenda—behind
them.
There are problems with this
proposal, but they aren’t the
ones suggested by Republican
Lynn Snodgrass, die Oregon
House majority leader, in die ar
ticle. Snodgrass is In fact com
pletely wrong In her arguments,
but that isnl unusual for her.
She said the same partisan bat
tles would continue, but they
would be between liberals and
conservatives instead of Democ
rats and Republicans.
What both Snodgrass and
Beyer miss is the fundamental
problem with partisan politics in
the state and nation: We have
too few parties, not too many.
Party platforms represent a
way for candidates to run based
on issues rather than personali
ty. Eliminating those platforms
would make candidates' person
alities even more important in
the elections process.
The origin of partisan bicker
ing is largely the similarity,
rather than the differences, be
tween the two major parties.
Both stage elaborate battles
over minor issues in an attempt
to provide a political dichotomy
that simply does not exist. If
the system included several
parties, there would be a larger
distinction between the views
of each party. The groups
would also have to form coali
tions and compromise on is
sues because no group would
hoid control over the legisla
ture.
One proposal that was being
circulated for potential inclusion
on the ballot would have institut
ed a system similar to that used
in many European nations. Un
der the plan, voters would cast
their ballots for political parties
rather than individuals, The par
ties would have a list of candi
dates who pledged support to
the party platform. Voters would
thus decide based on policy
ratherthan personality. Addi
tionally, the plan would allow
many parties to pain strength
because legislative allocation
would be based upon the per
centage of ballots each group re
ceived.
There are many problems
with this idea, but it would move
the state in a positive direction.
Beyer's proposal, despite being
weli-intentioned, would increase
the superficiality of campaigns
without doing much to solve
partisan bickering.