mm——i
Editor in chief: Laura Cadiz
Editorial Editors: Bret Jacobson, Laura Lucas
Newsroom: (541)346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
Monday
January 10,2000
Volume 101, Issue 72
Eitterald
uneauc
Everyone wants to see crime
punished, but most of us re
alize there are appropriate
levels of such punishment
for a given crime. And the recent pro
posal to suspend federal financial aid
from some students with an illegal
drug conviction is too severe in the
maimer it is written.
The first of many problems with
the plan to disqualify students from
receiving federal aid for the upcom
ing school year is that it would in
clude those with prior drug convic
tions. New consequences should
always start after die rule goes into ef
fect, in this case July 1, and not be
fore. It would be incredibly unfair to
retroactively seek out students to
whom to deny aid.
Besides the fairness of including
prior convictions, one of the most
pressing concerns in this issue is the
slippery slope of government peering
into personal lives. Whether the gov
eminent should be examining the be
haviors of its citizens before doling
out money is an important question
that will always raise the ire of in
formed citizens, regardless of their
stance on the issue. In this instance,
government would be taking money
away from those in need of it for vast
ly varying degrees of offenses against
society.
As irony would have it, those who
would be hurt most by this mle are
those who need to be attending
school to brighten their future
prospects. For many, receiving feder
al aid is the only way they can attend
school, which is now universally rec
ognized as a necessity for material
success in the coming century. Those
who would lose the ability to attend
school — over what could theoreti
cally amount to a very petty crime —
would face a life sentence of menial
work. This creates a double jeopardy
through natural consequences, even
though someone would have paid
their codified debt to society. That,
indeed, would be a disproportionate
penalty.
Without positively knowing the in
tent behind this policy, we can only
assume it is another “get-tough-on
crime” measure designed to show the
stalwart support for fighting drugs.
That would be fine if it were better
planned out and had a middle
ground to it.
The general notion of this policy
seems palatable to most: punishment
for crime. But this policy totally ig
nores any middle ground between no
financial consequence at all and
what has been illustrated to be a pos
sibly life-altering punishment. There
should be a probationary period,
mandatory drug counseling or some
well-reasoned hybrid of the two.
While the concern over a prying gov
ernment would still loom , a middle
step that would stave off taking
school away from a student would
make this plan more worthy of sup
port.
Because this is a decision that has
already been made, students can ar
gue over the merits of the policy but
still must live by its rules nonethe
less. There doesn’t seem to be any
thing that can be done save being in
formed on the repercussions, if any,
that may apply.
Even instances where little can
presently be done to alter a policy, it
is still important to keep a healthy ar
gument brewing in the hopes our rep
resentatives will listen. And if they
do, they should hear that this educa
tion policy is poorly planned, target
ed against those who need federal aid
the most and lacks any reasonable
middle ground. That’s one uneducat
ed plan.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses may be
sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
It’s time for students to stand up to Sizemore
Students should take
notice of Bill Size
more’s initiative on the
upcoming ballot; if it
passes it will have a devastat
ing impact on their pocket
books.
Loser in the last gubernato
rial campaign, Sizemore is
promoting an initiative for
the November ballot that
could be the worst thing for
Oregon schools since Ballot
Measure 5. For 1990’s gradu
ates of Oregon high schools,
that memory is still quite
fresh.
First the impact to the
state, student and individual.
Sizemore’s initiative will cut
more than $1.66 billion dol
lars out of the general fund
during the 2001-2003 bienni
um, approximately a 14 per
cent cut. This will mean dra
matic cuts in services to the
citizens of this state, espe
cially community colleges
and higher education.
Since Measure 5 was
passed, tuition at Oregon’s
community colleges and uni
versities rose well over 90
percent. The increases oc
curred because of backwards
measures like this one. This
new initiative will have an
even greater impact on our
tuition costs. The measure
would go into effect after No
vember 2000, and with only
eight months left in the 1999
2001 biennium the state
would see 1 billion dollars of
its almost 4 billion dollar
budget cut. That represents a
25 percent cut to the state’s
services dining that time.
With a 25 percent cut in
state services, what will hap
pen to students enrolled in
schools across the state? Un
doubtedly tuition will rise —
some say it could rise as high
as $500 mid year. This will
force many students out of
school. Also program offer
ings will be cut as faculty are
laid off to make room for
budget cuts.
The initiative would allow
Oregon income taxpayers to
deduct all of the federal taxes
they pay from their state re
turns. Currently, taxpayers
filing single and joint returns
can deduct a maximum of
$3,000 of federal taxes, and
corporate taxpayers can’t
deduct any.
Sizemore has submitted
more than 100,000 signatures
to get his initiative on the No
vember 2000 ballot, and it’s
expected to qualify easily.
The measure would make
the tax cut retroactive to Jan
uary 2000, concentrating the
entire financial meltdown
into the last seven months of
Oregon’s two-year budget.
The taxpayers would get
about $1 billion in tax cuts in
the' budget period, according
to the Legislative Revenue
Office. Those tax savings
would translate into cuts of
more than 20 percent in state
programs, including schools
and colleges, which are paid
for mostly with state income
tax revenues.
Sizemore wants to pass an
other initiative that would re
quire voter approval of any
tax or fee increases. That
could automatically put any
legislative response to the
tax-cut initiative back on the
ballot.
I am sick and tired of let
ting Sizemore run our state. I
was a peer advisor in college
when Measure 5 passed, and
I saw dozens of people
forced out of school because
they could not afford the mid
year $501.00 increase in tu
ition. I witnessed the stu
dents who had to leave Ore
gon State University and the
University due to program
cuts and faculty layoffs.
Students must stand up
and be counted on this one.
We have to teach ourselves
about this ballot measure,
stand up to Sizemore and tell
him we have had enough.
Help students register to
vote, help students learn
about this measure and help
students defeat Sizemore.
Ed Dennis is the executive director
of the Oregon Student Association.
His views do not necessarily repre
sent those of the paper.
Thumbs
To a Sip! <rf the
times
The ASUO will pre
sent a proposal
mat would allow
American Sign tan
kage to be used
to fulfill the for
eign language re
quirement. ft will
be reviewed by the
University Senate.
To expanded child
care
Gov. John
Kitzhaberwill in
dude a student
parent child-care
proposal in his
next budget after
an impressive ef
fort to increase
voter turnout by
Student Vote 2000.
Kitziiaber agreed
to include me fed
erally funded Stu
dent Block Grant
program in the
state midget,
thereby matching
it with state dol
lars.
To bumping smart
heads on invisible
ceilings
According to a Har
vard Business Re
view article pub
lished last week,
women find them
selves hitting a
glass ceiling in cor
porate America, as
they make up just
10 percent of se
nior managers in
Fortune 500 com
panies.
To an “unsatisfac
tory* poH
The Rolling Stones’
“(I Can't Get No)
Satisfaction”
topped a list of
VHI’s 100 greatest
rock songs, “Satis
faction” wasn’t
even me best
Stones song. The
muse industry
people polled for
mis attempt
missed the mark
terribly.