News

Always a Great Notion

The University of Oregon is committed to reaching higher, reaching out--but reaching where?

To date, nothing of any substance has been publicly written about the so-called Process for Change. This article marks the first. Attempts were made to contact and interview various individuals for interviews on the subject. None panned out, for reasons to be left open to the rampant speculation that will inevitably ensue. It has been rumored that no one--not even, in fact, those responsible for its existence, actually understands it. It has been said by some that it has become an unreclaimable entity of its own. Anonymous sources have been quoted as saying, "No one knows what's going on." But, for the duration of the article, disregard such hearsay, and read with an open, objective mind. Proceed.

The irony is murderous. Little more than halfway through the twenty mind-crushing pages of "The University of Oregon in the 21st Century: Reaching Higher--Reaching Out," comes the following proposal, aimed at all areas of UO endeavor, which suggests: "reviewing our rules, regulations, and associated paperwork; simplifying whenever possible." Incredible. The implications are staggering. Unless you've read it all, you have no concept.

The aforementioned body of text, something of a UO answer to the Unabomber manifesto, and comprised of nearly 9,000 words, lays the groundwork for a series of impending changes in UO policy. Called the Process for Change (or as it shall be known from here on out, the PfC), and reflecting the combined research and brainstorming of both students and faculty, the PfC aims to alter the face of the university--and the way you go to school.

Indeed, the goals are ambitious, if not pretentious, and in fact, so is the tone of the whole piece. The bulk of the three-page introduction takes its time in patting itself on the back for awards and rankings as bestowed upon the University by such publications as the Fiske Guide to Colleges and YAHOO! Internet Life. With repeated statements about the goals of the University "as we enter the 21st Century," and far-reaching statements as "the next decade will find the... University recognized as one of the very best in the world," these are some elephantitis-augmented cojones that those behind it all are operating with. From all angles, the PfC is revolutionary the likes of which ye have never seen. If only what was actually written down lived up to such auspicious ends.

The PfC was crafted, over a period of time, by students, professors, administrators, et al. Grouped into various Solution Teams, Accreditation Teams, Issue Definition Groups, and other such committees, assigned to the task were those who should know the school and its needs best. However, not only is the PfC far from ready to meet such lofty goals, it seems that this mysterious document has written itself. Of course, this task is ludicrous--nearly as laughable as the document itself. But if it is going to pave the way for the UO's success in the next millennium, then no doubt a good deal of reconsideration, truncation, and revision is necessary.

There are a handful of proposals in the "UO in the 21st Century" document which are indeed worthwhile of consideration, and would likely be an improvement for the school. Were there more space allotted, more would be said. Alas, there is not, and there will be not.

One particularly promising idea is to form a "two-year general education program" for undergraduates, so they can stay on task and be committed to a major by the start of their junior year. Included in this are the revision and improvement of such cornerstones as mentoring and advising. This provision is directed squarely at the average, undeclared undergraduate milling from History of the Motion Picture to Writing 121 with little or no clear idea of where they are going with their education. If realized, it could prove helpful.

Considering a tuition plan, where students would receive a "free credit, after successful completion of a certain number of credits." The buy-one-get-one-free deal. A likely favorite of the students who will probably never hear of this elusive process, and is the only one that lends itself to a catchphrase short enough for any activist to fit on a picket sign.

Once again consider the proposals listed above. Good ideas. Ones which subscribe to truth, justice, and the American way. Now erase them from your mind (or at least move them to the back burner), because if this is any indication of what will further come of the PfC, then don't count on reading about them in the Emerald anytime soon.

How does the University expect to pay for all of this? The "UO in the 21st Century" won't tell you. Nowhere does it address or even mention the prospect of actually paying to put these or any of the other hundreds of outlined ideas into use. The document may be merely blueprints, but any architect will tell you that you still include the measurements while figuring things out.

The previous designs are among the better--and true to the bell curve, they consist of but a few. However, these ideas and their ilk would have but little to no effect on a student's day to day education, or on their month to month, either. But the following ones are more likely to.

For example: "A more flexible year-round academic calendar built around five-week units, providing the opportunity for short courses, standard quarter-length courses, and longer courses extending for three or more five-week units." Now understand, for a moment, what this means. For one, a massive restructuring of the academic year. Imagine the complications, conflicts, and havoc this would cause if taken seriously. This is not like moving the Snickers bars from row D to row E in the EMU candy machines.

"Initiating and developing new research areas." Again, consider what this entails. Think about the time, the effort, the money, the research, the coordination, and not least of all, the red tape involved in such an undertaking. Consider this, because it doesn't appear that the authors of the PfC did. As with the calendar change, this is the only place in the entire text where one can find mention of this. And beyond that, it isn't even suggested what kind of research the University should develop, or in what field, or--for God's sake, it doesn't even say why. Except, of course, that we are on the dawn of a new era--one in which a '20' precedes the blank dash in your checkbook instead of a '19.'

And these are but a few. The proposal for the PfC is replete with revolutionary ideas that have absolutely no discernable thought given to the reality of actually implementing such grand aspirations. More: "Learn from and about other cultures, beliefs, and life experiences." "[Provide] time for reflection and synthesis of information being rapidly created in an accelerated 'information age.'" "Pursue excellence in research." "An integrated, coherent, lower-division experience." "Residential and other campus life experiences that extend education by functioning as learning communities." "Greater integration and synthesis opportunities in major programs." "More opportunities for non-traditional students." "Five year courses of study (either 3/2 or 4/1) which lead to both a bachelors and a masters degree." "Greater flexibility in graduate programs." "Hold town hall meetings regularly with students, classified and professional staff, as well as with faculty." Not one of these ideas, from the far-reaching to the smallest of tweaks--not one of them considered in any further detail than presented here.

Again, the idea is for the "UO in the 21st Century" to cover all the ground to legitimize future provisions--but doesn't restraint figure in somewhere? "The purpose of the process in which we are now engaged is to develop specific plans for improving our ability to meet the needs of 21st Century students." This alone is funnier than anything the Oregon Voice has ever published.

If any candidate in the recent elections tried to propose anything near the number of ideas the PfC attempts, they'd be disregarded the moment they handed in their financial disclosure forms. If the various teams and committees that put all this together were truly committed to Changing things, then the PfC would be a shorter, more coherent, better articulated, realistic set of goals--and it could be taken seriously. Instead, it reads like the maniacal ravings of Ted Kaczynski.

And maybe the most curious problem with the PfC is that not once--not once in the entire document does it explain what problems are going to be resolved by these changes. In most cases, reform is carried out when there are recognizable problems. The dictatorship of Indonesia didn't change hands because (the apparently first-nameless) President Suharto slept in, didn't show up, and everyone panicked. OSPIRG didn't get shot down because the GOP got together and bought off as many young people as it saw fit. So why the extreme and varied nature of the PfC?

It seems incredible that all this energy has been spent on proposals of this magnitude, with apparently no reason for it. Of course, they are all preliminary ideas--certainly they are not all meant to see the light of day--but the changes set forth by the PfC are homogeneously unexplained and uncalled for. Not once in the document (to use such a phrase again and again) is any particular proposal singled out for explanation. They are presented at face value, merely for what they are, and not for the change for the better they supposedly represent. Change for the sake of change?

One possibility--and this is purely speculative--is that the attitude has come to exist in the last few years that we are hurtling towards a great milestone in human achievement, and because of which, we need to revolutionize the way we do things. The strongest piece of evidence of this is the title of the proposal and the ubiquitous use of the phrase "21st Century" within it. Any change in the next millennium is purely psychological.

While cynical, this idea of millennium fever is one possible (of many, varied creative) explanation(s) for what has happened with the PfC. A lot of people got together, got excited about the turn of the millennium, cooked up hundreds of ideas, and no one involved managed to reign themselves in by they bounds of reality. The PfC is sprawling, and to instate even the tiniest fraction of them, at the rate government is given to working, would take about twice the time available in the century that the proposals are geared towards.

The earlier Unabomber analogy may hold a bit of water. Both are incoherent and rambling. Both demand idealistic, unattainable goals. Both were written by multiple personalities (this referring more to the single-mindedness of the committees than to the mental illness of our hooded friend). Both are the laughingstock of rational, intelligent, informed people--or should be. On an interesting endnote, the considerations of this 1900 word article, have actually been previously addressed by the PfC. Addressed, however, in just 12 out of the 8,955 words of the document the future of the University is based upon: "Many of the details will need to be developed by the Implementation Teams." Wish them luck and say a Hail Mary for every unsubstantiated proposal: they have their work cut out for them.

William Beutler, an undeclared freshman, is Project X for the Oregon Commentator

Don't believe us, fruity-boy? Go to: Reaching Higher--Reaching Out