Dental students face 20% tuition increase
By Gary Maloney
Staff Writer
Decreasing federal funding and the subsequent stoppage of university replacement support next year were among the reasons given for a 20% tuition increase for dental students.
Richard C. Oliver, dean of the school, discussed the increase Friday during a meeting with dental students.
RICHARD C. OLIVER
The School of Dentistry* is now operating on a “responsibility center” basis, unique at the university, where the school is self-supporting and financially independent from the university. Oliver said. As a result, the school is independent of the university’s budget system and must solve its own financial deficit. he said.
' The amountof federal capitation funds for the dental school has dropped from $1.1 million in
1974-75 to $540,000 for 1976-77. At the 1974-75 level, we were at or near the bottom line (of no deficit),” Oliver said. “And we are now contemplating a capitation problem of $560,000 with another $500,000 being lost as some grant programs wind down in payment to the school.
“The university gave us money at first when the funding dropped from the 1974-75 level to that of 1975-76, and again this year as the federal funding dropped to one-half of the level two years ago. However, they said they could no longer give a halfmillion dollars or more yearly to support the loss of federal funding.
“Our problems were not soluble with the university’s budget process. The university would get 25% of new revenue from a tuition increase, as well as ben-efitting from our own cutting of dental school overhead. We couldn't afford to lose faculty — we have a minimal staff in the dental school as it is. And I was unwilling to cut any more programs.”
“So, the school moved into use of the ‘responsibility center' concept. It allows the School of Dentistry to keep all revenue generated by the school as well as paying for its own expenses. It also will negotiate what will be contributed to the university by the school.
“Even with the 20% increase,
(continued on page 4)
Daily C# Trojan
University of Southern California
Volume LXXl, Number 33
Los Angeles, California
Monday, March 28, 1977
Art class boycott organized to protest prof tenure denial
By Shelley Hoose
Staff Writer
Some students in the Department of Architecture and Fine Arts are urging a boycott of classes today against the denial of tenure to James DeFrance.
DeFrance is in his seventh year as an assistant professor of fine arts. He was refused tenure last year and appealed his case, but was again refused March 16 by the President’s Advisory Committee on Appointments and Promotions.
Peter Duke, a junior in fine arts, began circulating petitions Thursday and talked with about 40 to 50 students who seemed receptive to the boycott, he said.
“I’m just trying to show the administration there's student support behind Jim (De-France),” he said.
“I suspect it’sgoing, from what I see,” DeFrance said Friday
PSYCHOLOGY PROF CONSULTED
Arcade game generates debate
By Mike Simpson
Staff Writer
A nationally publicized controversy over violence-oriented arcade games and their effects on behavior has involved Scott Fraser, a psychology professor here.
Fraser, who serves as a social science consultant forthe Earth News syndicated radio programs. said he was called in for professional advice concerning the psychological effects of a new arcade game on its participants after questions were publicly raised in Washington.
The game in question is called “Death Race.” and its features include a screen for a playing field, a throttle for forw ard and reverse gears and a steering wheel. In the process of the game, two-legged creatures scurry around the screen and the object of the game is to run over as many of the creatures as possible with the vehicle.
The controversy about the game started. Fraser said, when an editorialist on a Washington newspaper wrote an article lamenting the kind of culture in which an arcade game — where
players are rewarded for killing others — becomes a popular game and a financial gold mine for its manufacturers.
In response to this editorial, Fraser said the game’s manufacturers claimed the two-legged creatures on the screen were gnomes, not humans, and the game was perfectly acceptable. Fraser said that at this point. United Press International and the Associated Press covered the story and brought the disagreement to national attention.
“It was the social implication of the game that was really the issue, but I was originally asked whether I believed that the creature on the playing screen was a gnome or a human.” Fraser said. “My reply to the question was that it sure wasn't a duck.”
The entire matter about the creatures being gnomes or humans was quite possibly just a publicity stunt. Fraser said. He said he did not believe the violence-oriented games affect the agressive tendencies of people. “Death Race” would not produce killers behind the wheel, he said.
“In and of itself, an arcade
game probably has no substantial effect on human behavior. Having games like ‘Death Race' around, however, is just adding one more element in a society which promotes aggressive behavior and, at the same time,
(continued on page 3)
Syllabus for each LAS course to be published
By David Rosenbaum
Staff Writer
An estimated 80- to 120-page booklet containing a syllabus for each course in the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences will be published this summer.
Thomas Verdegem. director of the Academic Affairs Unit in Student Senate, is heading the project. He said the guide will contain information regarding a course's required work, format, texts and grading.
Comments from instructors regarding their areas of emphasis, expectations and self-evaluations will also be included, he said.
Gross discrepancies between what a course should be, as defined by the Curriculum Committee of the President’s Advisory Council, and how it is actually taught will be noted in the booklet, Verdegem said.
The results ofteacherevaluations administered by students in 1975 will also be part of the guide's contents, he said.
There has been no such publication since the 1975 edition of the USC Course Guide, edited by Gordon Dossett, currently a graduate
student in English.
Verdegem's guide will include information similar to the syllabus
(continued on page 3)
LOOK UP, EUCLID — And see
what your postulates and theorems have wrought — a metal sculpture in the courtyard of Watt Hall of Architecture and Fine Arts. And please look, but don't climb. DT photo by Scott Footlik.
about the planned boycott.
DeFrance does jiot yet know the reasons for the denial. He said he was just informed of the decision and hopes to be given the details this week.
He doubts if lack of outside creativity can be cited for a reason, since his work has been exhibited at one-man shows five times since he has been at USC — three times in Los Angeles, once in La Jolla and once in New York.
The problem, Duke said, isget-ting the facts about the case. He has tried to find out who was responsible for the decision and why, “But nobody’s naming names.”
Three other students are involved with him trying to get petitions signed: Vernon Haddon, Leslie Erganian and Beth Gafarian.
Haddon thinks one person is standing * in the way of DeFrance’s tenure, but would not say who. “There is a lot of politicking in the architecture and fine arts department.
Haddon stressed, above all, that he is confused on the issue; he is going only on heresay and departmental gossip. “It’s not only a bread and butter issue (for DeFrance) but also an emotional issue.”
Paul Hadley, interim
academic vice-president and head of the appointments committee, said he cannot quote members of the committee as to why DeFrance’s appeal was denied, to protect DeFrance’s privacy.
“A faculty member is entitled to that kind of anonymity,” Hadley said.
He explained the process of voting for tenure. First, discussion occurs at the department level, at which a committee from the department involved — in DeFrance’s case, the Department of Architecture and Fine Arts — meets to evaluate the professor’s performance.
The standards for faculty performance are set by the university in the Faculty Handbook, which states, “The two primary criteria for evaluation of academic achievement are excellence and creativity in teaching (and its associated scholarly preparation, student counseling and advisement at suitably scheduled times and the direction of research), and/or scholarly research, publication, and /or writing and other scholarly activities, as well as performance, production and design...there is an expectation that there will be a balance between teaching and other scholarly activities.”
(continued on page 4)