I served on the “incompetent” OUS Board while the state went through the greatest depression since World War II. I did my best to balance educational quality, access and affordability. As incompetent as I may be personally, I managed to see what others did not. Our state universities have never had their own ballot measure. This is a big deal, and unlike Measure 30, a measure focused on increasing access for low-income Oregonians could actually pass this decade in a state made popular by political lip service for the importance of education, but little action beyond complaining about costs. Your editorial (“Thanks for memories, debts, Jarvis,” ODE, April 7) does that beautifully.
The truth is the Legislature raised tuition; the state board and chancellor did not. Take legislative process 101. Further, affordability may not always be “what students want more than anything else” as your editorial claims. Just ask a freshman in a class of 300 being taught by a 22-year-old GTF right out of their undergraduate if affordability in education is their most important concern, or if quality is. An affordable education that amounts to being treated like cattle and not challenged intellectually is neither good for the individual nor the state. Smaller classes, brilliant professors and outstanding facilities cost money. Your editorial ignores that all the belt-tightening in the world cannot make up for a state government that has financially given college students the middle finger.
Without more state money, a policy of increasing college affordability would greatly decrease educational quality. Your editorial ignores that fact and so do most lawmakers.