Resolution calls for increases in security
By George Aguilar
Staff Writer
The Student Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution Wednesday to increase the yearly budget of University Security by $160,000 in an effort to fight the crime wave that is sweeping the area.
The resolution, passed with only one negative vote at the senate’s meeting, also calls for the salaries of campus security officers to be raised to a level comparable to that of Los Angeles Police Department officers.
The senate expressed the concern that University Security is not receiving the resources or manpower necessary to protect the campus community.
“We need to make a stand so that these basic necessities are met by the university,” said Bryan Howard, chairman of the environmental and external affairs research action unit and author of the resolution.
The resolution, which is only a suggestion to the Office of the President, also calls upon the California Legislature to give campus security officers “peace officer” status. This will enable security officers to expand their crime prevention abilities.
The resolution also asks the university to expand the budget of the university’s Escort Service by $16,000.
The senate hopes the university will match every dollar the students give the escort service through the student services fee.
Howard added that student safety is being compromised because University Security is underfunded and security officers are sever-ly underpaid. The average salary of University Security officers is $14,000 a year, while at UCLA the average salary is $17,000.
“This is a considerably worse neighborhood with a greater chance of physical harm,” Howard said.
It is the senate’s hope that security officers will be paid the same as LAPD officers, who make $20,000 a year. Since campus officers are trained on the same level as LAPD officers, Howard reasoned, they should be paid the same.
Howard said the added salary will help slow down the large attrition rate present at University Security, which loses top officers to larger and better-paying police forces. The increase will also serve to attract better-qualified applicants to security positions.
Howard said the increase is comparatively small in relation to
(Continued on page 5)
trojan
Volume XCI Number	University of Southern California Thursday, October 29, 11
University of Southern California Thursday, October 29, 1981
Professors analyze Reaganomics
Differ on policy’s ramifications
By Suzie Abdalla
Staff Writer
The question of whether Reaganomics will work in its attempt to revitalize the economy was tackled Wednesday by four university political science professors in a political science forum held at the university.
Two of the speakers, Carl Boggs, a visiting assistant professor of political science, and Mark Kann, assistant professor of political science, expressed negative views on the Reagan plan.
“I would argue that (the Reagan plan) is pure rhetoric,” Boggs said in his opening remarks to an estimated 100 students gathered in the Von Kleinsmid Center Lounge. It is designed, he said, “to serve the rich and screw the poor.”
Boggs predicted that the Reagan plan is destined to fail because of internal contradictions in its philosophy. He said Reagan is advocating massive cuts in the nation’s social programs, while at the same time increasing military spending to $1.5 trillion within the next five years.
He said a political system “can’t survive without social programs,” such as environmental research projects and aid to ailing corporations, such as the recent Chrysler “bailout.”
But Carl Christol, professor of political science, said the program outline has concepts that everyone in America would favor.
Christol said Reaganomics has set as its goals a higher standard of living, a reduction of unemployment, more national productivity and a more stable value of the national currency.
One member of the audience challenged Christol, claiming that the theoretical philosophies always look good on paper, but that “it is reality that we should be looking at.”
Christol countered by citing national polls that say 77 percent of the American public have expressed confidence in Reagan’s management of the economy.
Christol added that predictions of the outcome of Reagan’s program are not easily ascertained, but that “the success (of the program) will need public support.”
Christol mentioned cutting government regulations as one of the objectives of the program. But Kann said the purported deregulatory philosophy of Reaganomics is actually a guise for more centralized control.
As examples, Kann cited several of the newly instituted policies foreign tariffs, special preference to veterans and cuts in spending for vital social services, such as health care.
He said the Reagan administration cut the number of imported cars to spur American corporate growth.
The concerns expressed by several of the speakers about cuts from social programs and the impact of Reagan’s policies on the poor were termed “hoopla” by Thomas Greene, associate professor of political science.
Greene broke down the impact of the Reagan program in terms of statistical impact. He said the changes in the federally guaranteed student loan program, for example, are of minor significance, adding that those families earning $30,000 or more per year wil have to give more substantial evidence of their need for the loan.
Of the people receiving food stamps, Greene said only five percent of them will be affected. About 10 percent of those currently receiving welfare will be touched by the changes in that program.
(Continued on page 21)
NATIONALS UP IN AIR
Lawsuit threatens championship
Staff photo by Andrew Innerarity
LOOK OUT BELOW — Aided by this one-armed wonder, the university worker removes a banner from Bovard Auditorium and then prepares for a smooth landing and the security of stable ground.
By Ken Alexander
Assistant City Editor
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is in the midst of a law suit stemming from alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. As a result, women athletes at many universities do not know whether national championships will be sponsored by the NCAA, the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, both or neither.
The suit by the AIAW, according to a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, alleges that the NCAA has conspired with universities to offer sponsorship of women’s athletic national championships, held in the past by the AIAW. The AIAW fears that the NCAA, with its greater resources, might eventually force the AIAW from holding championships. As it stands now, this university and many major universities have abandoned the AIAW in favor of the NCAA.
Women athletes at this university will attend NCAA-spon-sored championships, or others yet to be decided, but definitely not ones sponsored by AIAW, said Barbara Hedges, associate director of athletics in charge of women’s sports.
The AIAW alleges in its suit filed in Superior Court in Washington, D.C., that the NCAA has conspired with universities to gain a monopoly of sports championships in both men’s and women's sports, said Ann Ublir, executive director of the AIAW. The AIAW
has sought a court injunction blocking plans by the NCAA to hold its championships concurrent with AIAW’s.
The suit was filed Oct. 9, 1981, and a preliminary hearing was held Oct. 22 in Washington. The court failed to issue the injunction, so NCAA-sponsored championships in field hockey, volleyball and cross country will be held this fall. The full hearing on the
lawsuit is set for February 1982.
Historically, the AIAW has sponsored most women’s championships. The NCAA has only sponsored men’s competition, said Michael Sondheimer, women’s sports information director at UCLA. Sondheimer also said Hedges was instrumental in convincing the NCAA to sponsor some wom-(Continued on page 17)
Senate opts not to back housing bill
By Katy Smith
Assistant City Editor
Students supporting a bill to outlaw housing discrimination against students are beginning to organize on several campuses in the Los Angeles area, but this university’s Student Senate has not actively joined in the fight because “the problem does not exist here” and its local lobbying power is limited.
“The Student Senate is not really putting an effort into (the lobby) (because) it is not a direct concern for (university students here),” said Dan Dunmoyer, an undergraduate representative on the Student Senate. “We haven’t directed a lot of attention to it because it doesn’t seem to be a problem for USC students. It is, though, for the Los Angeles community colleges. It’s not that that we aren’t concerned but it is a matter of priority.
“I don’t foresee a need for lobbying on something like this right at the immediate level because Auxilary Services right now has over 200 openings for students on campus,” the senator said. “So far, as USC students are concerned, if they want to be housed close to campus there is no problem whatsoever
Dunmoyer said there might be a problem in the future if more students enter the university, but “considering tuition increases . . . it doesn’t look like enrollment will be going up drastically, if at all.
“As far as the lobby goes, we are looking into it. However, to use USC’s political power is not effective,” he said, referring
(Continued on page 17)