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
Thursday
January 20,2000
Volume 101, Issue 79
Emerakl
Bryan Dixon Emerald
In the new global econo
my, it has become conven
tional wisdom that a good
education is vital in the
race to escape poverty. This is
especially true in the United
States, where technology has
been driving the economic ex
pansion of the 1990s, while
blue-collar jobs have become
marginalized and many are
sent overseas. But does our
system raise unrealistic barri
ers to obtaining an education
for a significant number of our
young people? Are we raising
new and more difficult barri
ers against education just as it
becomes more important for
the health of our society and
economy? It appears that Ore
gon Taxpayers United leader
Bill Sizemore is promoting an
unwise initiative that will do
just that.
Seventy percent of Universi
ty students work part or full
time while attending school.
In Oregon, college and univer
sity tuitions have increased
more than 90 percent since the
passing of Measure 5, while fi
nancial
aid has
only increased 82 percent
from 1988 to 1998. Well over
half of available financial aid
comes in the form of loans,
with the average undergradu
ate owing about $16,000 by
graduation. In contrast, if I un
derstand them right, my
friends from Germany have
their entire tuition paid by the
state and receive a living
stipend as well.
But is it really harmful to
require our students to
work their way through
college?
I started the five
year architecture pro
gram at the University
in the fall of 1992. With
tuition covered, I would
have graduated in 1998,
and I would be starting a
family with a relatively secure
job and income in my career of
choice. Instead, due to the ne
cessity to take a few years off to
earn money to return to col
lege, I’ll graduate less than a
month before my first baby is
bom, with questionable short
term job prospects and, be
tween my wife and myself,
more than $30,000 in school
debt. But does that really harm
me, or the thousands of other
students in similar situations,
in lasting ways?
Even though I’m convinced
that I will rise to the occasion
and will eventually pay off our
debts while providing suffi
ciently for my child, I believe
that it does. The stress of trying
to work while attending school
full time has affected my
health with depression,
headaches and indigestion.
But far worse, that stress, as
well as sacrificing study time
for work time, made it impos
sible for me to give my all to
my education and has fre
quently caused me to just
scrape by with the minimum
of study time required to pass
the next test. I have forgotten
lower-level information and
have been stuck relearning ba
sics when I should have been
applying them in advanced
classes. I have essentially sac
rificed the quality of my edu
cation just to get it.
For most people, working
even 15 or 20 hours a week sig
nificantly and detrimentally af
fects their education. Requiring
students to spend their free time
working also means that they
can’t be developing the friend
ships and contacts among their
peers that can help support
them throughout college and
their careers. They experience
stress and sleep deprivation
that makes it more difficult to
retain the information they read
in their studies, and they often
don’t have time to study all the
required material.
And into the mix marches
Sizemore, once again trying to
take money away from higher
education. According to Ed
Dennis, executive director of
the Oregon Student Associa
tion, Sizemore’s new initiative
“will cut more than $1.66 bil
lion out of the general fund
during the 2001-2003 bienni
um, approximately a 14 per
cent cut.” Tuition will in
crease, while the funds
available to run the various
programs at the University are
cut. In other words, education
will be
come
more
elite, less
available
and prob
ably of
poorer
quality,
while at
the same
time the
FredM. economy
requires
education
to be
more available and of better
quality. Is Oregon best served
by making a college education
out of reach for a large segment
of Oregon's population? Al
ready we have the second
fastest growing income gap be
tween rich and poor in the
nation.
I would suggest that Size
more is pushing us in the
wrong direction. It would be
much wiser to ensure that
funding is available for all
prospective students who can
pass an entrance exam to the
University. If the German
model is unrealistic for the
United States, why not require
a year of service in return for
four years of college? That year
could be spent in the military,
rural or inner-city aid pro
grams, the Peace Corps or re
medial tutoring for college en
trance exams.
It’s time to rethink our entire
approach to funding higher ed
ucation. We should be doing all
in our power to ensure that
those who are capable have the
resources available to obtain a
good education without being
saddled with enormous debts
that will drag them down for
years to come. Universal tuition
may not be the answer, but de
feating Sizemore’s initiative is
definitely a good first step.
Fred M. Collier is a columnist for the
Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do
not necessarily represent those of the
Emerald. He can be reached via e
mail at fmcollier@aol.com.
Editorial Round-up
The Iowa effect
By Jack W. Germond and
Jules Witcover
MANCHESTER, N.H. — There
is a broad consensus among politi
cal professionals that Bill Bradley
performed poorly in the debate
with Vice President Al Gore in Des
Moines last weekend. Not to put
too fine a point on it, but Gore
cleaned his clock.
The operative question now is
whether the ripples from that per
formance may affect the outcome
in the New Hampshire primary
that comes eight days after the
precinct caucuses in Iowa.
Confronted with a farmer plant
ed in the audience by the Gore
campaign, Bradley was stuck for
an answer when Gore chided him
for voting against a bill that would
have provided federal money for
the farmer and other flood victims
in 1993. The vice president,
Bradley said, was dwelling on the
past when this campaign is about
the future.
A day later, the former senator
from New Jersey came up with
what appeared to be an effective
response — that he had indeed
voted for flood relief but that he
and other Democrats, including
Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, had op
posed this particular version.
This explanation came far too
late, however, to erase the picture
of Bradley clearly bn the defensive
when it came to farm issues. It
seemed to confirm new opinion
polls showing Gore 20 points
ahead in Iowa even when running
slightly behind here [in New
Hampshire].
Bradley still has 10 days to close
the gap in Iowa. And there will be
other debates in both Iowa and
New Hampshire in which he may
be able to regain the offensive he
seemed to lose to Gore last week
end. His campaign is being
buoyed right now by new nation
al polls showing him stronger than
Gore against either Republican,
Arizona Sen. John McCain or Gov.
George W. Bush of Texas. And in
the end, that is the card Bradley
must play to win.
Drug office sneaks message
into prime time
By Joanne Jacobs
Knight-Ridder Tribune
After a six-month investigation,
the on-line magazine Salon
(www.salon.com) has reported
that the White House Office of Na
tional Drug Control Policy is fi
nancially compensating networks
for inserting its anti-drug message
into prime-time programming. It’s
payola for propaganda.
In late 1997, Congress funded a
five-year, $1 billion anti-drug me
dia campaign, demanding that
broadcasters provide one free ad
for every ad paid for by the gov
ernment. Regular ad sales were
slow, so the five major networks
— ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and WB
— went along.
But the buy-one, get-one-free
deal quickly soured when e-com
merce exploded, writes Daniel
Forbes for Salon. Dot-com adver
tisers were willing to pay full price
for the time networks were giving
away to community service ads.
In the spring of 1988, a payola
deal was struck: The networks
would turn selected sitcoms and
dramas into anti-drug commer
cials. In exchange, they’d get back
some of the ad time they owed the
government and be able to resell it.
Most networks have been send
ing a copy of anti-drug scripts to
the drug czar’s office for approval
or rewriting, according to Salon. In
most cases, writers and producers
didn’t know their network bosses
had sold script control.
What’s alarming is when the
government becomes the
scriptwriter, manipulating public
opinion with the public’s money.
The secrecy makes it more sinis
ter: If it’s OK to have the drug czar
approving scripts, how come no
body knew about it till Salon
broke the story?
“Big Brother is watching you,”
George Orwell warned in “1984.”
As it turns out: You’re watching
Big Brother.
College Press Exchange