If you haven’t already picked up on it, there is a growing divide between the “townies,” those who live in Eugene, and the “gownies,” the students. Yes, there is a problem with the relationship between those of us who attend class everyday, flitting about the University campus as if this was the only place in Eugene to go, and the general public who — gasp! — actually live and work here. Eugeneans at large are extremely supportive of our student athletes.
During football games, for example, Duck gear graces the heads, hoods, bumpers, windows, doors, chests and faces of many Eugeneans. They show up in record numbers, walking, biking and driving to Autzen Stadium to cheer on the Ducks. We entertain them. We take away some of the monotony that drowns out their otherwise boring days. Without the University, Eugene would be just another Springfield.
While this show of support (and the influx of money) to our sports programs is wonderful, and certainly well-deserved for our athletes, Eugeneans turn a blind eye when it comes to the rest of us — the students who do not provide an opportunity for tailgaters and drunken afterparties.

While I deny nothing to University athletes, Eugeneans write the rest of us off. OK, I know the fabulous paper I wrote in an English class cannot compare in interest to a 50-yard touchdown pass. However, students do far more for this community than we are given credit for.
As reported by the Emerald on Oct. 8, the EPD “party patrol” handed out more than 120 citations on Friday and Saturday. Of the recipients, 90 percent identified themselves as University students. Wow. Special police officers went out and found college students drinking. What a phenomenon!
To quote the old saying: “Look and ye shall find.” Undeniably, parties can become a problem, but party patrols are a ridiculous infringement on college students’ ability to function outside the campus. Here’s a wake up call to everyone: This is a college town!
Does EPD send out extra police patrols to make sure the tailgaters stay under control? Of course not. But let’s look further. According to the National Center for Public Policy and Education’s 2002 independent report, Oregon’s higher education went from a D- in 2000 to a giant F. The report states that only 25 percent of 18- to 24 -year-olds are able to go to college, compared with the 41 percent national average.
According to OSPIRG’s Web site, students graduate with more than $19,000 in debt, and low-income students work more than 35 hours per week. Making college an affordable endeavor is simply not high on Oregon’s list of priories.
Remember Measure 5? I don’t, because I was still in California at the time, but any Oregonian on campus will. Voted into law in November 1990, Measure 5 reduced property taxes over several years. Oregon does not have a sales tax, and anyone with a head on his or her shoulders should realize that the burden of funding state schools will come from somewhere else. And it gets better.
Oregonians passed Measure 47 into law in November 1996, which further limited property taxes. In a 1996 speech before Measure 47 was passed, President Frohnmayer gave a jarring statistic: “During the past six years, Oregon slashed public support for higher education more than any other state in the Union.”
Just think about it. Oregon, the progressive, liberal and open-minded state is worse than, say, Texas, Utah and Nevada. Since our football team is funded largely on private donations (how convenient), they can plaster Joey Harrington’s picture all over the country.
Yet, regular students graduate with heavy debt — or do not to go to college at all. To simply support an athletic side of the University is denying the majority of students the credit they’re due. With the impending 10 percent increase on every academic credit winter term, “townies” and “gownies” need to put their differences aside for the betterment of higher education.