The (“Surplus funds should be spent on endowment”, ODE November 7) editorial was very poorly considered on several points. First, it seems odd that the Emerald would choose to offer an editorial position on an “idea” for ASUO policy, before such a policy has even been officially proposed. Such an endorsement can hardly be credible, given that the reader does not receive the context, let alone a real debate on the quasi-proposed endowment in question. Rather, the editorial has chosen to ignore basic facts about the surplus in favor of an unwavering commitment to an idea that as yet remains highly undefined.
Imagine the United States government running record surplus after record surplus, while taxes actually increase every year. Imagine a corporation that makes huge annual profit without giving a dividend to its investors. Although a million excuses exist to avoid thinking of it in such stark terms, the money was taken from fee-paying students, and ideally should be returned. As the editorial board notes, this cannot happen since the money is now in a state account, which means it’s never coming back out… even though the state gives out millions of dollars in tax “kicker” rebates every year.
The real problem with the Emerald’s endorsement of the endowment concept is that it does so with no idea of what the endowment money would be used for. Perhaps the editorial board was so enthralled by the word “endowment” that it needed no further information about the use of the money before giving the idea a ringing endorsement. One example, six $5,000 scholarships, sounds good until discussion begins on how to implement this idea. Given the student Senate’s recent inability to pass comprehensive guidelines for its own operations, one can only wonder how effective it would be in creating truly fair guidelines for awarding these hypothetical scholarships.
ASUO politicians, like all politicians, love to wax eloquent on their commitment to improving the lives of their constituents, but as with all politicians, we must trust action, not words. Fees have now risen to over $200 per term, and our leaders are asking us to subsidize scholarships? If the ASUO were to use surplus money to establish a fund with which to finance a freeze or reduction of student fees for as long as possible, their rhetoric might have some substance behind it. Until they have a plan that actually benefits all students, the ASUO should not spend any of the surplus, and until the ASUO proposes a concrete plan, the Emerald should not rush to endorse half-baked ideas.
Ted Niedermeyer is the editor in chief of the Oregon Commentator