Tuition should be as low as possible
Ohio University's Board of Trustees has sent the proposed tuition hike back to the drawing board and will consider a revised proposal in the near future. The original proposal called for a 6 percent raise in tuition, but other options are being pursued. It is clear that there will be a hike in tuition for next school year, but that new amount has yet to be finalized, although President McDavis has said the raise will not exceed 7 percent and will not be lower than 5 percent. Raises in tuition have become a common phenomenon at OU -and other universities statewide -but the school should keep its tuition increase to the lower, 5 percent estimate.
It should be comforting for students to know that the Board of Trustees did not just rubber stamp the plan to raise tuition. In the recent past, the university has raised tuition and other fees by as much as 9 percent. And, in the case of a raise in the technology fee, the university had to have a committee figure out what to do with the extra money.
A tuition hike is justifiable but only when it seeks an amount of money that is necessary for the near future. Realistically, the university will spend every dollar that it has in the bank, and therefore the university must, in order to save both students' and their parents' pocketbooks, be as frugal as possible with tuition increases. Hopefully that means a 5 percent hike and nothing more.
A slippery slope
Battle to protect journalists continues
One concept of immeasurable value in a democracy is the free flow of information that the press requires to help ensure an informed public. Another concept of comparable importance is the enforcement of swift and impartial justice. Free speech has clashed with the rule of law on several occasions historically, and the past week has seen this battle revisited in more controversial fashion than ever. More specifically, the question at hand regards the privileges that should be allotted to journalists in protecting confidential sources. The question can be difficult, but the sacrifice of these privileges should be avoided at all costs.
In 1972, the Supreme Court recognized that such privileges can prove detrimental to the execution of justice when information shared by confidential sources involves criminal activity.
While this distinction is justified, recent events have proven that a case must be fully established if a reporter is to be compelled to identify sources. Barring the most extreme of circumstances, proper judicial consideration must be given to journalistic integrity and the higher ideal it serves a knowledgeable citizenry.
Two reporters currently face up to 18 months in jail for not cooperating in the investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. The story of Time's Matthew Cooper was no more than a follow-up to a column concerning the leak already printed elsewhere. Worse yet, The New York Times' Judith Miller reported on the issue but never even published a story. Regardless, both are being held in contempt for choosing not to disclose the sources for their respective reporting. The ruling of a federal appeals court reinforced this decision last week, 3-0. Clearly, contemporary interpretation of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision is straying into the realm of the arbitrary, where it warrants no justification. Intelligence leaks of the magnitude in question are felonious, and the fervor to bring those responsible to justice is understandable, but this in no way justifies the wanton persecution of these reporters.
While 31 states have some form of a shield law that helps to protect journalistic confidentiality, the lack of a federal equivalent leaves these rights vulnerable to capricious rulings such as the ones surrounding the Plame leak. Identical bills now proposed in the House and Senate would require courts to meet stricter national standards before issuing subpoenas to reporters, which The Post has advocated in the past and continues to support now. This could be a terrific solution to a very serious problem. While reporters are expected to contribute to justice like everyone else, their professional rights should not be butchered heedlessly in the pursuit of it. To allow this precedent to continue is to invite a truly unthinkable injustice -a public isolated from the affairs of its own government.
Clarification
Yesterday's editorial, The best solution
indicated that the university would be saving money by choosing Wesam Construction Inc., over PRS Companies for the renovation of the Mill Street Apartment complex. Because both companies would have paid for their respective plans, OU saved no money by choosing one over the other. 17
Archives
The Post Editorial Board
