Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About Cougar print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1976-1977 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 9, 1976)
s *ó the Editor: Your editorial last week was very well written and your point was »tally correct. I have been very liberal in the ASG meetings this >rm fes the procedures were new to all of us in student govern- lent. Mistakes must be made if anyone is to learn. I must compliment the Cougar Print and staff. In one term it has aken the paper from a grade school crap sheet to an upper high chool variety. I hope by the end of next term they will be able to »ringthis college and community a paper worth reading. To close this letter I feel one thing must be stated to the students 11 CCC. You have failed in your responsibility to this college, and I nless you start taking an active role by helping to do things, this : iollege will continue to displease generations to come because you were too lazy to help now. Think on that this holiday as January 1 I s a new year and we hope it will be prosperous. Happy holidays Michael Ayers ASG President To the Editor: We appreciate having information about the Self-Help program printed in the Cougar Print, but unfortunately the main points emphasized in the article last week were incorrect and therefore, of course, misleading. The college is not establishing this program. It will be developed by the group effort of people in our community rather than any "agency." At this point we are still in the "idea" stage. There is no director, (Jean Carner and myself are co-chairing the meetings.) By no means have* we limited our group to welfare people. Although Roseburg's Confidence Clinic leans this way, it is not necessary to imitate their program to that extent. The main guidelines we hope to utilize from their Self-Help concept is a red tape cutting approach to meetthe needs and desires of people in our community; that doesn't strip a person of individual choices, and is not dominated by pro fessionals. Ultimately the structure of this program, whether for low in come people or not will depend on all of us involved and needs we see can be met in our community. I would like to encourage any one linterested to call me at extensions 288 or 257; or Jean at 655-6879. Thank you. Marcia Tuma To the Editor I attended a forum bn inter-collegiate athletics at Clackamas Community College today, in which there was very little community involvement. I heard some factual information given regarding amounts of monies spent, students actually benefitted by the pro gram, and support actually provided by the community and the students for the program. This information demonstrated to me that the program is not significantly (I considered total student and community participation) supported by anyone but the teaching staff of the athletic department. came away wondering whether or not we are so totally caught up in the idea that we must offer a competitive sports program or be considered un-American, that we are unable to see this issue clearly. There seemed to be a willingness to overlook the reality of the budget, community and student needs in order to accommodate the I program. Some support offered in favor of the program included statements (my interpretations) like, "at least we offer some opportunities for Blacks that aren't available elsewhere." I thought, "opportunity for what?" It was stated by an instructor that these particular students, who are primarily coming in from other districts, are often not prepared for the heavy academic load also required of them here. This leads to a high rate of drop-outs (as many as half) which may add to an existing, societally imposed sense of failure. ■Another statement made in support of the program was that athletic programs ’promote national health. This was said by an admitted overweight, out of condition P.E. instructor. It was said that the average age of students at CCC is 28 or 29 years, obviously older than the majority of students participating in the competitive athletic programs. This point (the students them selves) brings me to what I saw as terribly inconsistent; the majority of students participating in competitive athletic programs are either out of district or out of state students! Many of these stu J Thursday, December 9, 1976 f 1 dents are on tuition waivers, that is, their tuition is paid in some way by the community. One of the athletic instructors pointed out that students en rolled as P.E. majors needed this competitive experience. What that seems to me to be saying, is that we must strive to meet criteria set by the four year, higher tuition, higher budgeted colleges on our two year college monies. One of the reasons I chose CCC was the lower tuition rates. I see a need to accomodate athletic programs as other programs are maintained, directly proportionate to community/student needs. Our present program does not do this. Are we going to avoid making a difficult decision -- deferring it -- hoping someone else will do it? Or, are we finally willing to decide where our priorities are and make a committment to support them? I see these priorities as the people in this community who finan cially or otherwise support CCC but who, in this area, are not the beneficiaries. I do not advocate discontinuance of class type athletic programs at CCC. In fact, I would like to see more variety offered for all ages, sexes and interests. I do suggest that we cannot afford the athletic program we presently have, given the reality of the budget, and at the cost to other human resources. Susan Fredd 20251 S. Beavercreek Rd. Oregon City, OR 97045 To the Editor: I think it would be unfortunate not to provide further clarifi cation regarding the proposed Randall-McLoughlin bridge referred to in Louise Stults' letter to the editor, which appeared in the Cougar Print two weeks ago. First of all, the letter claims that several benefits will be derived from the construction of such a bridge; among them being improved access for the handicapped to the west side of Randall through the use of the McLoughlin elevator, the provision of three additional classrooms and the provision of additional instructor office space. It is my belief that a closer examination of a few of these "benefits" is in order. At first glance, the concept of "improved access to the west side of Randall" for the handicapped sounds truly magnanimous. How ever, upon observation of the situation at Randall, one very large- scale flaw in the concept becomes glaringly evident; there is al ready in existence an elevator in Randall -- an elevator which, for some mysterious reason, No one is allowed to use! If we are so con cerned with making the facilities accessible to handicapped stu dents, may I ask why the Randall elevator is not opened? We don't need a bridge to open Randall to everyone -- just a locksmith. With regard to the provision of additional office and classroom space, it is my feeling that while most students will, in all probabil ity, agree that such additional space if badly needed, still a ques tion must be asked here: Why put it in the air? It is obvious that specialized construction techniques are required to support a concrete structure between two buildings. And if there is one thing that economic experience teaches, it is that specialized techniques cost more. It is not inconceivable that we could obtain significantly more useable space for our money by constructing additional office and classroom space at ground level. An added benefit of ground-level construction would, of course, include immediate accessibility to the facilities by handicapped people. In closing, there is one final point to be raised: in her letter to the editor two weeks ago, Ms. Stults, referring to the federal (tax) dollars to be blown off on this bridge, states (and I quote), ", . .the federal funds are available specifically for construction projects such as the bridge, and cannot be used for other purposes." Let me get this right: are the people who run this school ser iously trying to tell us that the federal government turns over a double fistfull of our tax dollars to the school administration with the admonition, "You can only use this money to build bridges! Nothing more; nothing less!"? Preposterous! If the bureaucrats of this institution plan to con tinue handing out such lines of unadulterated crap, may I humbly suggest that they move their offices over to the compost heaps out side Smucker's Center -- where within 15 days it can do everyone some good? Sincerely, Jay Haight Page 5