COLLEAGUES: First and incidentally, against the acrid e-mail blur of the past week, am I the only one who found Wednesday's Senate PTR discussion almost exhilarating? Faces and voices work better than electrons, don't they? Second, I share Mike's concern for retaining developmental elements in whatever final policy emerges. Those elements came out of a large and diverse ad hoc committee which, back in a hazy autumn of yore, appeared to have the confidence of--but evidently too little "guidance" from--the Senate president who appointed it. Third, although yesterday's outcome lacked the support of a quorum, we probably should look the other way. The alternative is scary.
I hope the Executive Committee will bring forth a document displaying a digestible minimum of "realpolitik" and a maximum of positive force for the university's mission. If development utterly vanishes from the pending draft(s), I say we protest loudly (but politely, Peter). The pressure to appease a lightweight accrediting organization and transient legislators claiming to speak for an ephemeral egg-head-resenting populace STILL should not deflect us. That's easy for me to say; a journalist learns to live with being despised. But most UO faculty have learned to live with being underappreciated and underpaid, and that's a good start. Thanks to all for hanging in. I'm available for stakeouts and over-the-transom surveillance if needed...
jim upshaw