TWO WAYS TO SEE FOOTBALL—Students find many ways to get to the various stadiums in this country to view a popular USC sport—football. In the left photo, quarterback Vince
Evans draws the winning ticket in Mortar Board's allexpense-paid weekend for two in San Francisco for the USC-Cal game. Robert Akers was the £rand prize winner. In the
right photo, Bill Lawler (left) and Don Cavin prepare for the
2,200	mile trek to South Bend by means of horseless carriage. DT photos by Bob Selan and Mike Seedman.
Student file review guidelines proposed
University of Southern California
Volume LXVIII, No. 27	Los Angeles, California Thursday, October 23, 1975
Committee to study intellectual, cultural enrichment of university
By Larry Tuck
staff writer
The Faculty Senate is establishing a committee to study the possibilities of enriching the university as an intellectual and cultural community.
The aim of that committee, its chairman said, will not be to improve the intellectual or cultural opportunities themselves, but rather to improve the awareness of the university community.
Thomas Somerville, assistant professor of church and choral music, said that the university already has excellent programs in drama, music and cinema, among others.
But even within the university, many people are unaware of the opportunities available to them or are unwilling to make the effort to take advantage of them. The same problems are intensified outside the university community, he said.
Aside from the communication problem, the university’s location, area crime, parking difficulties and inadequate facilities have discouraged involvement in cultural programs in the past Somerville said.
“My role as chairman is to galvanize the resources available to get the entire campus involved,” he said. Somerville said he hopes to or-
ganize a resource pool including faculty from schools and departments ranging from public administration to performing arts.
The goal would be to tie together the different parts of the university, to give them a feeling of sharing in all aspects of campus life.
“We’re united in that we’re all part of the same institution, but at the same time we’re isolated in our own high-rise building, busy with our own business,” he said Ultimately, Somerville said, the area has to be made more attractive for people of diverse backgrounds and interests to live in and to visit.
“That doesn’t mean we have to tear down all the buildings and build a freeway around it so we can have a wall,” Somerville said.
“I don’t know what the solutions are; that’s what we need experts in other fields for.”
He said that the new University Village shopping center should help draw more people to the area, but that more is needed.
Even bars and coffee shops where students and faculty could gather after concerts and other events would encourage them to spend more time associating with others in the university community, he said.
By Peter Fletcher
staff writer
Procedures for students to review their cumulative files have been proposed by an ad hoc committee of the President’s Advisory Council.
Students are now guaranteed access to their files by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (the Buckley Amendment).
Students who want to review their files must submit a written request to Robert L. Mannes, dean of student life, or the office that holds the student’s file. The student must be allowed to see the file within 45 days.
David A. Kallick is the chairman of the ad hoc committee that is responsible for reviewing the university’s present guidelines.
The present guidelines for student access to files were established last spring by a committee chaired by Richard Dolen, acting director of Student Administrative Services. The committee also reviewed an opinion letter concerning the Buckley Amendment from the law firm of Musick, Peeller and Garret.
The committee will submit its recommendation to the executive committee of the Presidents’ Advisory Council this
week for further consideration, Kallick said.
Kallick said that the proposal must be approved by the executive committee of the PAC, the full PAC and President John R. Hubbard.
Students are allowed to see all records that the university maintains on them with five exceptions.
Students are not allowed to review their medical records, parents’ confidential financial statements, records compiled and possessed by one person and unavailable to others, certain letters of recommendation dated prior to Jan. 1, 1975 or those for which the student has waived the right of review.
The university cannot release the personal records of a student to outside agencies such as the police, FBI or CIA, without the written consent of the student. The information can be subpoenaed by an outside agency but the university is required to inform the student of the court order.
A number of people are allowed to see student records without the student’s consent according to the proposed guidelines. These include other university officials and
(continued on page 3)
Stanford woes $6,000 tuition rate projected
By Kevin McKenna
editor
There’s trouble brewing at the Farm.
Stanford University, whose endowment fund is looked upon with envy by most USC officials, is operating in the red. A budget deficit of $1.2 million has been projected over the next three years.
And that has led Stanford officials to abandon any hope of holding the line on tuition increases.
Last week Stanford administrators presented their Board of Trustees with a proposal for a 13% tuition hike—bringing the projected tuition bill to $4,303 for the 1976-77 academic year.
Even more disturbing to Stanford students—potential students—is a five-year financial master plan drafted last year. The plan projects an average annual tuition increase of 12.2% for the next five years.
That would bring total tuition costs at Stanford to $6,036 for the 1979-80 academic year.
Even with the whopping tuition hikes, drastic cutbacks in the university budget are being planned to get Stanford back into the black.
A total of $10 million in budget cuts over a three-year period began last year, including current proposals for an 11.1% cut in academic programs, a 14.5% cut in administration and maintenance, a 14.2% reduction in the student services budget and a 50% cut in overseas programs.
Stanford’s architecture department was among the first victims of the university-wide belt-tightening. The program will be dissolved after those currently enrolled in it have completed their degrees.
And Stanford officials have admitted that the projected $1.2 million budget deficit is an optimistic figure.
“We consider that gap to be slightly optimistic, that is to say, it could be more,” William Massy, Stanford’s viceprovost for research told the Stanford Daily. “We think it’s a credible figure.
“Considering a larger gap would begin to seriously impair academic programs while smaller ones would not adequately reflect Stanford’s economic situation.”
What does all of this mean to USC?
Perhaps nothing, and perhaps a lot While it may provide some encouragement that USC has been able to remain in the black even without a large endowment, it offers a dreary reminder of the realities facing all private universities.
Among these may be a realization that tuition must inevitably rise at a faster rate than inflation or family income.
Stanford’s 11.6% annual tuition hike projected in the five-year plan is based on forecasts of a 9% annual inflation rate and a 10.2% annual hike in average family income.
In addition, while Stanford’s endowment may be relatively large compared to USC’s it has not been a panacea.
While USC officials are mapping out their centennial fund-raising drive, Stanford has announced plans for a Campaign for Stanford to increase donations. Another drive to augment Stanford’s general endowment fund and reduce the proportion of the endowment revenues used to finance expenditures has also been planned.
Stanford officials admit that long-term financial planning at a private university is, at best, tenuous. “A year
(continued on page 2)