Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Monday, February 4,2002
Editorial
Consider reality
of financial aid
drug provision
Anyone with a prior drug conviction will dis
cover it’s nearly impossible to obtain finan
cial aid from the federal government, even if
the conviction occurred long ago and the per
son has since turned his or her life around. But with
holding aid from students who have had prior drug
convictions is pointless and unfair — no one should
be denied access to higher education.
Groups in Oregon and California are now rallying
for the repeal of the Higher Education Act’s drug pro
vision, and the protest — one of the most important
concerns on campus — affects many students.
The provision potentially bars students who answer
“yes” to question 35 on the Free Application for Fed
eral Student Aid, which asks if the applicant has been
convicted of a drug offense — students can lose aid
even if they just leave the question blank. In 1998, a
new provision to the Higher Education Act imple
mented the clause requiring the drug conviction ques
tion be placed on the FAFSA form.
Why withhold financial aid from students who
may need it the most? Whether one has sympathy
for past drug offenders or not, it is counterproduc
tive to punish them twice — by convicting them of
the original crime, and then by taking away what
could be their only means of attending college.
Higher education is an excellent way for these stu
dents to improve their lives and make better choic
es. Barring past drug offenders from school will only
hinder this process, decreasing the likelihood that
they will continue their education.
Many protesters contend the provision targets mi
nority students, since studies show more than half
of those convicted of drug violations are minorities.
Recent American Civil Liberties Union statistics
show that black people make up 12 percent of the
population and 13 percent of drug offenders, but
represent more than 70 percent of incarcerations for
drug possession.
The Higher Education Act drug provision should be
repealed. The judicial system punishes drug violators
once. Punishing them a second time won’t benefit
anyone. Furthermore, FAFSA only denies aid to those
convicted of drug offenses and not other crimes. If it’s
acceptable for the government to deny people access
to education based on their pasts, why just bar people
with drug convictions? Why not shoplifting arrests or
speeding tickets or violent crimes? How do they make
any more sense than prior drug convictions?
It’s estimated that up to 60,000 students were de
nied financial aid this year because of prior drug
convictions. For these people, obtaining financial
aid might make the difference between a future of
possibilities or a future of crime and poverty. The
government should consider this reality when de
ciding whom they will exclude from access to high
er education.
lllilli:
Editorial Policy
This editorial represents ttie opiRion of the Emerald
editorial hoard. Responses can be sent to
letters@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest
commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited
to 250 words and guest com mentaries to 550 words.
Please include contact information. The Emerald
reserves die tight to edit for space, grammar and style.
Editorial Board Members
Jessica Blanchard
editor in chief
Julie Lauderbau^
editorial editor
Jeremy Lang
managing editor
Patricia Hachten
community representative
assistant editorial editor
Goida Portillo
community representative
LeonTovey
newsroom representative
tit i # $ i 4t i
Evaluating class evaluations
A few weeks ago I was hustling
to my public relations writing
class when I was called out
into the hallway by a faculty
member who asked me if I remem
bered what I wrote on my teacher eval
uation for a fall term class. After a little
deliberation, I remembered exactly
what I wrote.
I had written a glowing review of the
professor, but I included an inside joke
in the “other com
ments” sec
tion. The
phrase asked
for a clown to
be sneezed
upon, but it
also includ
ed some pro
fane words.
My words
were not
written to be
Oliver
Columnist
negative —
they were
an inside
joke that
completed for the first class will
be available to the professor by
the time they take another class
from them. An evaluation with
a few harsh criticisms could
put you behind the ball the
second time around.
The simple way to solve
this problem is to make
sure they are read blind,
without a name at
tached. Instead of
signing the form, a
student could give
his student identi
fication number.
This way, if the
name of the student
needs to be tracked
for any reason, it
could be done. The
evaluations could
also be done
anonymously.
The major criti
cism of this
would be that
students would
only the members in the class
would understand. Since professors
can eventually read evaluations, I
thought the professor would have a
good laugh remembering the story and
the class that produced the words. I
soon learned that a few amusing words
could cause me great trouble.
The faculty member reminded me
that not only does the professor see the
evaluations, so do other faculty mem
bers and the dean. The faculty member
closed our discussion by telling me to be
careful of what I write on my evaluation:
because it could potentially hurt me
down the road. I didn't think much of
what was said at the moment since I was
already late for class, but since then the
advice has brought my mind to a boil.
If students could potentially be hurt
by what they write on an evaluation,
then why would they be honest or
even fill it out at all? For a student who
is up for a scholarship that is decided
by a group of faculty members, a truth
ful, yet negative, evaluation of one of
his colleagues
could be just
enough to
push the deci
sion to give the
award to some
one else.
Another scenario
is students who take a
class at the beginning of
their college career and
then as upperclass peo
ple take a class from
a pro
fessor
who sits
on a tenure
review
board. If your name
keeps popping up as the
student who gives the bad evaluations,
then your treatment in that upper divi
sion class could be tainted.
Often, students take more than one
class from a single professor during
their time in school. An evaluation
n t taKe tne evalu
ations seriously.
This could occur,
but the students
who are already fill
ing out the evaluations
are doing so only be
cause they want to. The
students who couldn’t care
less just leave.
The purpose of the profes
sor evaluations is valid and
warranted, but they are only
good if they are
truthful. The posi
tive evalua
tions are just
as important
as the nega
tive ones, but
half of this
equation will cease to exist if students
are afraid to be honest.
Peter Utsey Emerald
E-mail columnist Jeff Oliver
atjeffoliver@dailyemerald.com. His opinions
do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald.
Every week, the Emerald prints the results of our online poll and the
wvw a pu» qUK^HiUn* OHvUlU vFJJYvJvHly v&rmPtttlMy QIIfGhIw
be allowed to monitor heavy bandwidth users?
Results: 130 total votes
-®::tew. bandwidth users dsue^e ju*.^mr Pms-v
pe >r 20 votes
■ Yes, students who use the system illegally should lose their
■ »ir
■ No, the University should have a policy to protect students from
communication: «r, or 84 votes
* Don't know - 9.8 percent or 13 votes
TfefewM&’s poll question: Should the Oregon Commentatorbe
forced to change its mission statement?
The choices*
* Yes, If the Oregon Commentator uses student fees, it should
follow ASUO rules
■ No, the Oregon Commentator does not promote any political
affiliations
■ Don’t know
■Don’t care
Letter to the editor
Take action to protect
students in financial need
The $720 million shortfall in the Oregon state budget has
put students, and especially student parents, in a possibly
devastating situation. Due to the state shortfall, the Student
Childcare Block Grant and Oregon Opportunity Grant are fac
ing possible cuts and elimination. A proposed $2 million cut
would eliminate the SCBG and harm the 433 parents who re
ceive it, while 1,500 to 3,000 students will also lose their
OOG grants.
These state-funded grants allow students across the state
to attend college. Education has to be a focus for our state leg
islature. Students and Oregonians need to force the state leg
islature to recognize the importance of fully funding these
programs.
ASUO is heading up a letter-writing and postcard campaign
to send to our local and state representatives. People can stop
by the ASUO office to make a phone call, sign a postcard or vol
unteer to go to Salem and lobby to our representatives.
Megan Hughes
pre-journalism
CLARIFICATION
The column "Fake plants reek!" (ODE, 1/31) should have staled
that Student Recreation Center silk plants were purchased with
student money from a construction fee, which is separate from
the incidental fee. The Emerald regrets the error.