Volume XCIV, Number 42
dM% trojan
University of Southern California
Thursday, November 3, 1983
By Doreen Guarino
Staff Writer
Prices may rise due to $700,000 bookstore loss
Commons deficit of $500,000 offset by residence hall profits
The Trojan Bookstore, once ranked among the highest-selling college bookstores in the nation, suffered a loss of nearly $700,000 in the 1982-83 fiscal year, its largest loss in recent history.
In contrast, last year the bookstore turned a 5400,000 profit.
University officials said the loss not only breaks the bookstore's tradition of being highly profitable, but it also endangers plans to build a new bookstore next to Owens Hall on Childs Way next fall.
"It came as quite a surprise," said Jon Strauss, senior vice president for the administration, about the bookstore's losses. "They're not going to have those losses again. The bookstore has always been a profitable operation."
According to figures released from the office of budget administration, Food Service also showed a loss of about $500,000 while the residence halls had a gain of more than $400,000.
Bookstore ranked seventh
The bookstore has one of the largest volumes of sales and is ranked seventh in the country among college bookstores and first in the volume of sales per square foot. Last year it generated $12 million in gross sales.
"The thing to realize about the bookstore is that the deficit that was experienced was non-recurring — it was a one year experience," said Anthony Lazzaro, vice president of business affairs.
As one of the non-recurring factors which helped cause the deficit,
Lazzaro cited a $350,000 adjustment in the bookstore's inventory to provide for items that have become obsolete and no longer sell. The bookstore incurred this adjustment as a cost and so it offset any potential for profit.
He said this kind of adjustment is made every few years and is routine in the retail business.
He said that a change in the bookstore's accounting system was worth another $100,000 in losses. The system that was in effect until June 1982 failed to take into account adjustments for such things as discount sales, discounts given to employees and departments, and commissions paid on credit cards. When these factors were taken into account by a new accounting system, which was established on July 1, 1982, the profits were reduced, Lazzaro said.
• $200,000 in discounts
Lazzaro said the bookstore gave $220,000 in discounts to employees and $150,000 in discounts to university departments which figure in as part of the deficit. However, he said the policy of giving discounts is popular and will continue.
The economy was another factor, causing a drop in sales and also a change in the nature of sales from previous years, he said.
"For instance, students continue to buy textbooks on which there is little or no profit," he said, "but they did not buy (many) discretionary items like gift items on which there are greater profits".
(Continued on page 2)
Professors anticipate politics will dominate Olympic Games
MICHELLE KARAS/DAILY TROJAN
This student may soon find himself paying more at the Trojan Bookstore since university officials have disclosed that it suffered a $700,000 loss.
Reagan’s directive ignites flame of ire in government researchers
By Jeffrey Tylicki
Assistant Qty Editor
"Illogical" is how an administrator characterized a directive issued by President Reagan which would require researchers who deal with classified government information to submit all written work for government review before it is made public.
"Such a harsh attempt at dealing with an undefined problem like this could have a real chilling effect on persons doing re-
By Joann Galardy
Assistant City Editor
Four university professors predicted that the 1984 Olympics will be a political, not athletic, affair when the Games come to Los Angeles next summer.
Speaking at a forum titled "The Olympics: Is Politics the Name of the Game?,” three
professors from the political science department and a professor from the school of journalism discussed some of the problems and issues facing the Olympic Games in general and the 1984 Summer Games in particular.
The four professors agreed that the Olympics are indeed politically motivated.
University professor George Totten, left, between four professors about the Olympics. Christol are seated to Totten's left.
JON SOO HOO DAILY TROJAN
mediated a discussion Kenneth Smith and Carl
"The central political issue in the Games will be lining up the unaligned countries behind the two superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union)," said Carol Thompson, professor of political science who specializes in the politics of Third World countries.
Kenneth Smith, a professor in the school of journalism who has reported on several Olympiads, sees the 1984 Games as a contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. "The issue in the Olympic Games will be socialism versus capitalism if you want to reduce it to the bottom line," he said. "We better do a good job of selling our side because socialism is a little ahead of us right now."
There was a general consensus among the panel members that the Olympic Games could be improved if athletes were allowed to compete as individuals rather than as representatives of their countries. They also agreed, however, that this was not realistic or likely to happen in the near future.
Smith said the objective of the Soviets will be political rather than athletic when they partici-
(Continued on page 5)
search or scholarly work," said William Spitzer, associate provost for research.
The president's directive was the subject of an article in the Oct. 26 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. In that article, researchers from around the country called the order "repressive," "censorship" and "an outrageous assault on the First Amendment."
A member of the General Accounting Office reported to a congressional subcommittee that 112,660 federal employees and an additional 15,000 private researchers who have government contracts would be affected by the directive.
Specifically, the directive would require any researcher who has access to "sensitive compartmented information" to sign a promissory statement agreeing to submit their written speeches, letters, papers and even works of fiction to government reviewers prior to public release. If these individuals refuse to do this, they would risk losing their job or contract.
"There is no (classified) government research conducted at this university, but there are people who do consulting or work over the summer (involving high-level research)," Spitzer said. "This type of work is not something that goes away when employment (with the government) ends.
"I wonder if (a researcher involved with classified government work) could even teach classes under this directive."
Spitzer was not sure how many people at the university might be affected by the directive, but guessed it could be as many as 100. He added that the areas of research of those who may be involved with sensitive studies could include such diverse subjects as engineering, international relations, chemistry, business, biological sciences, law and mathematics.
One of the things about the directive Spitzer said he found puzzling was the need for a signed statement from the researchers.
"I have always gone under the assumption that if material was classified, it was against the law to disclose it anyway," he said, explaining people who take such jobs are usually aware of this.
"It's the same as when you take out a driver's license, you agree to abide by the laws," he said.
The big issue to Spitzer is how a federal reviewer would decide whether something submitted to him is classified.
He asserted that many reviewers, who generally do not have detailed knowledge in specific subject areas and who would be deluged with papers submitted for approval, may decide to "sit on" something they don't understand, whether it actually is classified or not.
"I wouldn't consider even working under such conditions," Spitzer said. "I believe most people would stop consulting (instead of stop teaching). The government will be the loser on this issue."
Spitzer also questioned the reasons for implementing this directive. He views the order as a punitive act against a few' that will affect everyone.
"The vast majority of researchers who have access to classified information will not discuss it," he said. "The government could say this will prevent 'accidental cases' (when researchers reveal top-level work inadvertantly) but I would like to know how' many of these cases there are."
Another concern Spitzer voiced was the bureaucracy scholars will run up against in dealing with government reviewers.
(Continued on page 3)