Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
OregonMyEmerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
EDITORIAL
IJ.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif„ should
write a book on higher education funding. That way, ra
tional lawmakers around the country can read it and
know what not to do.
If passed in Congress, McKeon's particularly dimwitted "Af
fordability in I ligher Education Act" would allow the II.S. De
partment of Education to cut funding for certain university
programs aimed at providing greater student access, such as
work study and Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants, if the institutions raise tuition too high, too quickly.
Ironically, most universities that raise tuition drastically in the
fashion that McKeon attacks do so because of state funding
shortfalls, making McKeon's plan even more asinine
But wait — maybe we're on to something here. With
McKeon's plan, state legislators can grossly mismanage
money — criminally so, it seems — and drastically cut
their support to higher education when they realize
nothing is left. Then, the government can step in and
throw students hirther down the hole.
Who loses in this equation? Is it the state for setting bad
monetary policy? No, they get off the hook on this one; McK
eon's bill fails to hold legislators accountable. Is it the univer
sities who suffer gaping holes in their budgets after the gov
ernment takes more? No, they would most likely do one of
two things, raise tuition even more to offset the penalties for
raising tuition or cut classes. Ultimately, the students suffer.
And so McKeon's idea throws the higher education fund
ing system into a huge sticky mess of circular logic, especially
considering that the people McKeon seems to be trying to
help — the poor, unwanted college students — are the very
people who will feel the brunt of such an absurd law in the
long run.
McKeon should realize that tuition hikes — especially
in Oregon, where they are drastic — can be attributed to
one thing: decreased state funding, whether it is the result
of an economic slump or inefficiently handled money at
the state level.
Either way, cutting even more from strapped universities is
not the answer. The fart that this even needs to be said is a
prime example of how the price keeps rising on education but
nothing is being done to actually fix it — something legisla
tors — our elected representatives — should be willing to do.
As University Senior Vice President and Provost John
Moseley said in a Nov. 4 Emerald article: "The reason tuition
is going up has nothing to do with costs going up. The prob
lem is not increasing cost in higher education; it’s declining
state support for higher education."
Another recently failed attempt to relieve the stress of sky
rocketing tuition was last year's "The Deal," which unfortu
nately also lacked necessary insight into how the state Legisla
ture provides money. Simply, the Deal was aimed at splitting
the burden of funding straight down the middle with students
paying 50 percent and the state paying 50 percent. It seemed
like a great idea until the state slashed $62.7 million from the
Oregon University System budget rendering the Deal dead in
the water and effectively shifting OUS from savings mode to
survival mode. But OUS officials made their biggest mistake
when they assumed that the state would dean up its art and
live up to its end of the bargain; dearly it did not.
Ihe problem of state funding obviously mns deeper than
can be described in this small space, but one tiling is appar
ent: Before lawmakers or OUS officials attempt to fix the
problem of tuition hikes, they should start at the source of
the problem. Ihe Oregon Legislature must overcome its par
tisan bickering and take a good, hard look at reforming the
way it handles taxpayer money. Only then will students start
to see some relief.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brad Schmidt
Editor in Chief
Jan Tobias Montry
Managing Editor
Aimee Rudin
Freelance Editor
Ayisha Yahya
News Editor
Travis Wilise
Editorial Editor
Eric Layton Illustrator
BIOPICBULLIES
Everyone knows that free markets are
the cat's meow. Everyone knows that
competition is the best form of regula
tion in every case, and that it will always
do the most effective job of protecting the
public interest. Some have gone so far as
to say that "History is dead," because cap
italism is the answer we've all been look
ing for.
On Oct. 4 we saw a prime example of
the invisible, yet ever-so-godlike hand of
free market mythology in action, when it
descended from the sky and single-hand
edly won one for the Gipper. Thank the
dollar, too, because the great Satan of lib
eralism was a mere 12 days from invading
our homes through our television screens.
Under relentless pressure from conser
vatives across the country, CBS decided to
pull its November sweeps spectacular,
"The Reagans," and send the biopic off to
its sister company, Showtime.
A memo issued by CBS denied accusa
tions that the company was a frail lap-dog
of a business that cowered and wet itself
under the raised fist of angry business and
political interests.
After admitting that the miniseries'
"producers have sources to verify each
scene in the script," CBS claimed that the
movie "does not present a balanced por
trayal of the Reagans ..." The memo also
adds: 'This decision is based solely on our
reaction to seeing the final film, not the
controversy that erupted around a draft of
the script."
Conservative critics protested the film
because of its ties to "liberal" I Iollywood
and its alleged factual misrepresenta
tions. Both of the film's producers are
homosexual activists, and actor James
Brolin — husband of the unfortunately
liberal Barbara Streisand — plays the role
of Ronald Reagan. They called the movie
a cheap-shot on a defenseless dotard and
American hero.
According to friends and family of
Ronald Reagan, the film portrayed him
falsely. They took special offense to the
line in which Reagan speaks of AIDS pa
Joseph Bechard
Cultural obstetrician
tients, saying: "They that live in sin shall
die in sin."
But critics of CBS's move say the compa
ny kowtowed to Republican cries of liberal
bias and demands that CBS yank the $9
million, four-hour story of Ronald and
Nancy Reagan's lives. They argue that the
public should be allowed to view the
movie and make decisions for itself, also
emphasizing that no one has even seen the
movie yet.
In an undated script posted on the In
ternet magazine Salon.com, this watered
down drama looks too dumb to be an ef
fective shot at Reagan. Some even believe
this glitzy docu-drama didn't sink its teeth
deep enough into the 40th president's
character. If you want to take a stab at the
ailing ex-president while his defenses are
down, there is no shortage of fodder. I le is
one of the most scandalous presidents in
die history of the United States.
In "Sleepwalking Through History:
America in die Reagan Years" Haynes Bon
ner Johnson claims that Reagan's admin
istration was the "worst ever" in terms of
corruption. "By the end of his term, 138
Reagan administration officials had been
convicted, had been indicted, or had been
the subject of official invesdgadons for of
ficial misconduct and/or criminal viola
dons, " Johnson wrote.
But this case brings up the more impor
tant subject of the role that big business
plays in the media. Viacom, one of the
world's largest media conglomerates, owns
CBS and could certainly use a little help
from its conservative, right-wing friends in
its time of need.
Viacom — like Fox's parent company,
News Corporation — is in violation of the
ownership cap limiting a television broad
casting company's reach to only 35 per
cent of the national audience. It is await
ing the Senate's ruling on the Federal
Communications Commission's decision
to increase the limit to 45 percent. The de
cision — its fate now looking very bleak —
has faced heavy bipartisan criticism in
Congress since the FCC issued the ruling
on June 2.
With such a huge decision looming in
the background, Viacom couldn't afford
to anger any of its conservative, pro-busi
ness cronies in the Republican-dominat
ed Congress or in the conservative courts.
The corporation's only option was to
send the movie to a narrower audience,
hoping to avoid retributive action by
powerful conservatives while avoiding a
total financial loss.
Recently, some conservatives have put
increasing pressure on the media to por
tray reality in these very narrow and specif
ic tenns. With George W. Bush and his Na
tional Security Council asking journalists
to clean up their war coverage, Attorney
General John Ashcroft pleading with the
media to portray his USA PAFRIOT Act in a
more flattering light and right-wing liars
coercing media companies to censor
themselves, it's becoming more difficult to
avoid the self-centered arrogance of con
servative loudmouths.
This silly situation establishes a regret
table precedent, wherein rightists attack
and eliminate anything critical of their vile
and gluttonous dogma.
Thanks to Reagan and the free-market
gospel he brought to this backward land,
the media have the freedom to air and
print only that which doesn't upset the es
tablished order, and we get to watch pro
military misrepresentations of Jessica
Lynch.
Contact the columnist
atjoebechard@dailyemerald.com. His
opinions do not necessarily represent those of
the Emerald.