Better higher education funding good for all
The latest news from Salem concerning the budget for the Oregon University System has been the best there’s been in this otherwise bleak session.
From a starting point of nearly $100 million below what our seven public universities figured they would need for the next funding period, we have now arrived at the $792 million that is still below what was originally sought by the OUS, but is a great improvement from where Governor John Kitzhaber started us.
Between those two points the co-chairs of the Legislature’s Joint Ways and Means Committee offered their own budgets that further muddied the waters.
These past few months, which witnessed this “yo-yo” of a budget, have been at times most distressing to those in higher education. And not only have administrators and professors been keeping a wary eye on legislators, but student leaders have also kept their fingers on the budgetary pulse in the hopes of defeating a tuition increase that at times was feared to be upwards of 10 percent.
Like the fear of a drastically reduced overall budget, that fear has also failed to materialize in light of the stabilizing efforts of the Education Subcommittee that last week approved the $792 million budget as well as only a 4 percent tuition hike for this next year and a 3 percent increase to follow.
This is an encouraging sign, as it shows our lawmakers actually had the gumption to put some support behind higher education during a session in which state funds were hard to come by and the Department of Transportation, the state police and the Department of Justice were all lobbying to preserve their budget requests in full.
It would be easy for anyone to argue that those on campus have a self-centered view of the state budget and don’t take into account the necessity of other services that had to compete for funding. While to some extent this is true, one also has to understand the grave importance of higher education to Oregon. As this state continues to make the painful transition from a sawmill to computer-chip economy, it needs qualified university graduates who have a devoted interest in the betterment of their home state. Leaving the OUS scrambling to make ends meet will just make this that much more difficult.
Every institution in Oregon from the University of Oregon to Oregon State University’s fledgling Bend campus needs the full support of Oregon’s Legislature if we want to remain competitive in the national and international market.
Tainted goods should be returned
No one can discount the value of donations. Generous gifts have remade our Knight Library and also established a formidable law school here at the University. But when gifts are received that were obtained through ill-gotten means, then it is time for this institution to take the high road and return any such funds.
The Portland-based investment firm Capital Consultants, headed by University alumnus Jeffrey Grayson, collapsed under federal scrutiny last September. It would be later discovered that Grayson appears to have used $355 million in funds taken from his clients and union pension accounts for various purposes, including hunting trips for clients and charitable donations. The University received $800,000 from Grayson and then renamed the old law school building in his honor in part because of that donation and the pledge to add $1.5 million more.
Thomas Lennon, the receiver appointed by the U.S. District Court to liquidate Grayson’s firm, has made it clear that he believes the University should return those funds to Capital Consultants’ private portfolio so the courts can further deal with this tangle of financial deception.
Despite Grayson’s charitable involvement with the University, which included serving in some of its largest fundraising efforts, University administrators should initiate an effort to ensure that any funds that have any taint of corruption on them not contribute to its educational mission. Instead, they have maintained a defense that the University has not been explicitly asked to return any funds and will not even “speculate about what would happen,” as University General Counsel Melinda Grier said, until it receives such a letter.
Our University should seek to solve this problem of its own accord and not because it is told to do so.
Recognize the value of signing
Education is an ever-changing mission because of our ever-changing society. The standards and requirements set by this University and any other institution of higher education should reflect that.
Therefore, it makes good sense that the University should support a bid to extend the perimeters of its foreign language requirement to include sign language. Granted, there are more people fluent in Spanish and French than sign language, but that does not diminish the value of learning sign language. The culture of deafness is just as legitimate of as that of any Spanish or French culture and the University should recognize this by letting students complete their bachelor of arts degree with two years of sign language.
Coordinating one’s words to one’s actions should be just as challenging as the complexities of French verb tenses, and unlocking the doors to the world of the deaf has the same merits as delving into the Spanish culture.
Western Oregon University already offers signing as a means to fulfill a language requirement, and this University should follow that example.
This editorial represents the views of the Emerald’s editor in chief and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Oregon Daily Emerald.