Volume Cll, Number 23
Seventy-Fifth Year of Publication
(pfeflHw trojan
University of Southern California
Thursday, October 2, 1986
it'
RALPH R. CALVO DAILY TROJAN
Students gathered in front of Tommy Trojan at noon yesterday for an anti-apartheid rally.
Student rally protests apartheid
Speakers debate divestment
By Robyn Epstein
Staff Writer
A group of emotionally charged speakers congregated at Tommy Trojan yesterday to denounce apartheid and the recommendation made by a special committee that the university selectively divest its holdings in South Africa.
Patrice McKinley, president of the Black Student Union, opened the rally by saying, “We are here because the committee submitted a report recommending policies that do nothing to encourage divestment.
"The report states that this university could make new investments as long as companies adhere to a one or two rating of the Sullivan Principles," McKinley said.
But Abraham Lowenthal, chairman of the committee and an international relations professor, said he didn't believe students were adequately informed about the report.
He was asked by the organizers of the rally to explain the recommendations submitted by the Committee on Investments and Social Responsibility.
"The issue is not whether the committee is for or against apartheid. We repudiate human injustice," he said.
Study investigates curriculum problems and outlines recent trends in admissions
By Aaron Curtiss
Staff Writer
Why should a student attend USC?
The university's has asked itself this question in a 478-page self-study report for reaccreditation entitled "Designs for Leadership."
The report, which was released last Thursday, also proposes solutions to some of the problems of the undergraduate curriculum and outlines recent admissions trends.
With the university's comparatively high cost in mind, the accreditation team asked itself, "Why do students come here and why do they stay, given
This is one in a series of articles reporting the findings of the university's reaccreditation self-study.
the willingness of the State of California to subvene virtually the total cost of public higher education?"
In the fall of 1984, 71 percent of the freshman class was from California and thus was qualified to attend either the University of California or the California State University system as in-state students, for whom tuition is free and costs are low.
The team pointed out that some of the students could have sufficient scholarship aid to allow them to attend a state school at virtually no cost to themselves. And for most students, it said, the choice of USC over UC or CSU will mean the necessity of part-time employment or accumulation of debt.
Although the median parental income of USC students is about 33 percent higher than the national average, "the large majority of our students require financial assistance in order to attend," the team's report said.
Indeed, according to a survey conducted by the university in 1984, students claimed that financial aid played a very important role in helping them decide to attend.
In the same survey, 67 percent of the students said the university's academic reputation was also important in their decision to attend. In 1984, the mean grade point average of freshman was 3.30, a .11 rise from four years earlier.
Students also dted the fact that graduates get good jobs or go to the top graduate schools.
A good reputation for social activities also influ-
enced some of the students surveyed. It ranked fifth in the survey.
"As long as they're putting academic reputation first, I don't mind seeing it there," said Ken Taylor, faculty advisor to the Interfratemity Council. "I can't envision 18- to 23-year-olds saying social life is unimportant. To think that is not being serious."
In another survey conducted in 1984, the area of social life was mentioned most frequently by those who had already attended for a semester or more. In that survey, the emphasis on quality education dropped from first place to sixth place.
First place was taken over by relationships and friends, which students cited as the most positive part of their USC experience.
However, the university scored low in the area of registration and fee bill payment, which students said was a negative aspect of the university. They also complained about staff attitudes and some teaching assistants' English fluency.
The team recommended that a program be initiated to better prepare TAs for speaking to and understanding a class of undergraduates.
The team also expressed concern over freshmen who, because of their majors, were not interacting with faculty, staff, and other students in their department until after their sophomore year. This was especially true, the team noted, in competitive majors like cinema / television, journalism, business, and architecture, where many students are admitted after their freshman year.
"This profile suggests that the first-semester experience of a good number of USC freshmen may not feel much like college. And where it does feel different from high school, it may not feel good," the team said.
In response to this concern, the team recommended exploring "the possibility of creating a series of freshman seminars, identified by a common number across all departments willing to participate."
That program, Freshman Seminars, was begun this semester. But while Richard Fliegel, director of
(Continued on page 3)
Lowenthal said the real question concemcs how the university should "discharge its responsibility toward the community?" He said the university has legal responsibilites in the management of its investments.
The committee considered all the social and ethical concerns and asked, "how this social and ethical criteria should be applied to racial injustice," Lowenthal said.
"The committee looked into the behavior of each company with investments to see how each corporation behaves," he said. "The question then became, are they upholding ethical values and Sullivan Principle ratings of one or two?
"(The university should) divest from those (companies) without a clear record of helping the situation," Lowenthal said.
When asked by a student, "What's more important, legality or morality?" Lowenthal replied that he wasn't sure how to answer that question.
The next speaker, Eliana do Nascimento, a teaching assistant and graduate student in political science, said it's unfortunate that the administration may never achieve the difference between economic pursuit and morality. As long as the university has money flowing through South Africa, we are supporting
killing, immorality and racial suppression.
"Academic pursuit has nothing to do with not divesting. Divesting would be a sign of courage on the part of USC. If Coca-Cola can do it, USC — a non-profit organization — can too," she said.
"It's about time the university takes a stand on something other than football tickets," said Wally Bobkiewicz, president of the Student Senate. "Let's be unique and do something no other university of our size in the U.S. has done — divest totally.
"Let's stop being a 'me too' university. It's up to you to make your feelings known. Drop a letter off to the board before their meeting," he said. Bobkiewicz asked to attend the Board of Trustee's next meeting on Oct. 8, when the board will vote on whether to adopt the committee's recommendations.
President James Zumberge said Bobkiewicz would not be allowed to attend. He did tell Bobkiewicz, however, that he will be allowed to meet with Virginia Ramo, a board member, beforehand to express student concerns.
Bernard Walker, a former president of the Black Student Union who now works for (Continued on page 2)
Controversy surrounds Van Cleave resignation
By Pabio Lopez
Staff Writer
Confusion has surrounded William Van Cleave's resignation as director of Defense and Strategic Studies.
Contrary to claims made by Van Cleave, Irwin Lieb, former dean of Letters, Arts and Sciences, said yesterday he never promised Van Cleave authority to choose his own faculty.
"We met a number of times to discuss his program and we did talk about a number of things," Lieb said. "But no one made a deal that (Van Cleave) would appoint his own faculty. No dean at any university would ever make such a promise."
But Van Cleave did at one time have the authority to choose his own faculty members for the program, a "sort of veto power" over his colleagues.
It was previously reported in the Daily Trojan that President James Zumberge promised to grant Van Cleave total control over his program. But in a letter to the editor yesterday Van Cleave said he never met with the president. He wrote: "I said that the university administration had given me certain assurances about the protection and strengthening of the program."
Administrative moves on various levels that conflicted with Van Cleave's interests in the program led to the director's resignation, which was submitted to die university administration in February, accepted in June and made public last week.
In an interview yesterday. Van Cleave said in the presence of Paul Bohannan, dean of social sciences and communications, that Lieb gave him a weighted voice in the selection of faculty to the Strategic Studies program.
Lieb and Bohannan both denied any promises had been made and no written agreement was produced.
But Gerald Bender, acting director of the School erf International Relations, said yesterday that Van Cleave was granted the authority to make his own selection of faculty members five years ago, by Michael Fry, the director of the school at the time. Fry is on sabbatical leave until next year and could not be reached.
"The faculty acceded to his demands that he effectively would be allowed to find an acceptable candidate that was politically and academically compatible to him for his program," Bender said. "It was an informal agreement, a sort of veto power to choose whomever he wanted.
(Continued on page 3)