Norwood Street students’ dream becoming a reality
By Chris Navarro
A group of fourth and fifth grade students at Norwood Street School rolled their eyes and thought it was absurd when their teaching assistant suggested that their class attempt to convert four empty lots into a neighborhood park.
That was a year and a half ago. Since then, the students have raised approximately $89,000 to get the park built and, on March 25, at the 21 Street and Estrella Street lots, ground-breaking ceremonies will be held.
Robert Glasser, then a senior at UCLA, was the teaching assistant who taught environmental education at the elementary school. Glasser said the objective of the class was “to teach kids that they can change the environment in which they lived. This is a feeling that is lacking in inner city schools.”
The idea of building a park on the lots had occurred to Glasser, but it wras not until a class discussion on community improvement that he seriously suggested it to the students as a project.
The students were at first skeptical of the idea but, once goals were set and students began to actually work on the project, things began falling into place.
The children formed a non-profit organization group known as the Norwood Community Organization and began to raise money for the park.
“There's an adult and children's version [of the Norwood Community Organization),” said President jasmine Borrego. “We usually do what the children want with the money and, because they are underage, we sign all the papers.”
(Continued on page 10)
trojan
Volume XCI Number 42 University of Southern California Monday March 15, 1982
Civil rights group to stage rally protesting Reagan’s proposals
By Charla Foster
Staff Writer
The Action Coalition, a university civil rights organization composed of various campus groups, will retaliate against the Reagan administration’s “declaring war on the American people,” by holding a student rally against two proposed “anti-civil rights” laws.
The rally, to be held March 31, will address both the Human Life Amendment and the Family Protection Act—-two
MEETING OF THE MINDS — An old timer takes time to talk to a young Venice Beach. See the photo essay on Venice Beach on page 6.
Staff photo by Jessica Friedham
man at a park near world-famous
proposals currently before Congress that concern education, federal aid, social services and civil liberties.
In a memo describing the coalition’s major goals, the proposals were described as “ammunition to destroy civil rights, equality for women, the poor, gays and lesbians, minorities, children and the elderly.”
“Although the administration largely attacks equal rights for women, it has proposed various laws that, if passed, will affect a great many people of all political positions,” said Gretchen Cotrell, a member of the Feminine Caucus within the School of Social Work and co-founder of the coalition.
"For this reason, (the caucus) decided to open the coalition up to all student organizations, liberal or otherwise, and to share their knowledge and resources,” Cotrell said.
Among those individuals and groups endorsing the coalition, Joan Schaefer, dean of Women; Madeline Stoner, assistant dean for the School of Social Work and members of the National Organization for Women will appear at the rally to voice their concern about the Human Life Amendment and how it will affect women’s rights.
Carol Chernack, a member of the Feminine Caucus w’ho served as associate organizer of the coalition, said the amend-
ment violates both women’s rights and the universal right to freedom of choice.
“By passing the amendment, the administration will, in effect, deny women the right to choose their own methods of contraception, and both men and women the right to exercise control over their family size,” Chernack said.
“Under this law, many methods of contraception would be outlawed, such as the IUD (Intrauterine Device), certain birth control pills and abortion,” she said.
“Not only does this violate our right to freedom of choice, it also violates our right to privacy.
“It is a medieval type of bill, a push backwards. Women won’t stop having abortions if the bill is passed, they’ll just have them in back alleys like second-class citizens.”
Other groups that will speak out against the Human Life Amendment include the Gay and Lesbian Student Union, YWCA, Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, MEChA (Movimiento Estudientil Chicano de Aztlan), the Minority Task Force and Students for Economic Democracy.
Tracy Gay, a member of the Gay and Lesbian Student Union, called the Family Protection Act a carefully worded but direct attack against gay rights.
(Continued on page 9)
University plans to eliminate 1-year-old patent office
Director disputes claim that office does not have offsetting income
By Christopher Murray
Staff Writer
The university’s patent office, a promising source of revenue for the university, will be eliminated as the administration attempts to trim the budget.
“I think that the administration is looking at a short-sighted budget viewpoint,” said Clark McCartney, director of patents for the university. "They should also look for the benefits, both monetarily and scientifically, that the inventions can offer.”
McCartney's office, which opened last July, is responsible for licensing companies that wish to utilize inventions the university has patented. Companies pay the university for the rights to a patent.
“It is an alternate source of income, and the large part of the income is four or five years downstream when the company’s production is in full swing and you can sit back and receive royalties,” McCartney said.
Jon Strauss, senior vice president of Administration, agreed that one year was not enough time for the patent office to prove its full worth.
"The office should have had a three- or four-year trial period, but last year we didn’t know we would be experiencing the stringent budgetary problems we are now facing,” Strauss said.
“The patent office is a cost that doesn’t have an offsetting income,” he said.
McCartney disputed Strauss’ claim. “Our current budget is $108,000,” he said. “We think we might be able to have sufficient income this year to pay for the office. We expect to contribute to the university’s general fund $75,000 sometime next week from a licensing agreement.”
“There is no question that significant revenues have been brought in,” Strauss said, “but it’s an area that shouldn’t have to be staffed by a senior administrator and a full-time secretary.”
Strauss said he thought the faculty would be able to handle most of the functions carried out by the patent office. “I’m betting on the faculty,” he said.
Despite the closing of his office, McCartney remains optimistic about his office’s ability to contribute to the university’s revenues. “We’re working on sort of a deadline. We’re going to try to prove to the university that this office is a valuable asset,” he said.
McCartney cited a new methane conversion system as a “perfect example of what this university can produce.” The conversion system converts methane, one of the world’s most abundant gases, into benzine
which can then be converted into gasoline. The process, which was developed at the hydrocarbon institute, has been patented by the university.
“What makes this process special is that it can be effectively used on a large or small scale. We think the methane converter will be extremely successful,” McCartney said.
McCartney has worked at the university for 17 years and is the past president of the Society of University Patent Administrators, which represents 180 institutions.
The patent process at the university often takes several months. The university decides whether the invention should be patented.
“The marketability of an invention must be determined by a patent committee before university money can be spent,” McCartney said.
If the invention was produced using federally funded research monies and the university decides not to patent it, the government is given the opportunity to do so. If it refuses, the inventor is given all rights to the product.
“Up until recently the government would be given the first opportunity for patent rights to an invention,” McCartney said. “New regulations have been passed which change that. This puts a responsibility on universities to develop and patent their inventions.”
If the patent committee approves an invention, it then goes to an attorney who initiates a patent search to determine if anything has been published or produced before. If the search determines that the invention is unique, then the university will put up the money to have the invention patented.
Royalties to the university are subtracted from the initial costs of having the invention patented. The remaining money is split between the university’s general fund and the inventor.
McCartney licenses companies to utilize university patents. Getting utilization out of the university’s inventions is one of McCartney’s duties.
“We are interested in a company getting the product to the public. Part of our job is to keep our patents in the public’s eye.”
McCartney said he feels the university patent process needs to be more organized to become more effective.
“A patent office can become a major source of revenue if it is run properly,” McCartney said.
“We want to prove to the university that we will be a great source of revenue in a time of tightening budgets. Whether we will be able to accomplish this by July 1, I don’t know.”