ASSC names 4 to student-trustee group
By CATHY MEYER
Executive Editor Four students were named to the ASSC-proposed student-trustee liaison committee at a special meeting of the ASSC Executive Council Tuesday.
James Factor, a sophomore in business; Kathy Fleming, a sophomore in international relations; Pat Nolan and Mark Spitzer. both seniors in political science, were selected after a lengthy debate behind closed doors.
Much of the debate centered around four absentee ballots submitted by Kent Clemence. ASSC president. The ballots for Jeri Banks. Panhellenic president; Dave Krill and Glen Dresser, graduate representatives, were written by Clemence and signed by them. Dave Wold, a graduate representative who has yet to
attend a council meeting, submitted a ballot through Clemence. written and signed by Clemence.
Clemence had not contacted Wolds previously, either, to inform him about council business or question him on his attendance record, though Clemence said the ASSC secretary had called Wolds and told him about council meetings. Steve Knowles, Student Court chief justice, has brought a nonfeasance charge against Wolds for his absences.
Lee Blackman, vice-president for academic affairs, questioned the validity of the ballots and maintained the selection was a political move that would further damage ASSC credibility.
Clemence later told the Daily Trojan that the absent council members “should have every possible avenue to voice their
opinion in the important measures being considered at the meeting” (trustee liaison and voluntary fees). He said he contacted the members in question by phone and that “they voiced their desire to vote on those particular issues” and were unable to send proxy members to the meeting.
The council voted not to count the absent members’ ballots in the final vote on the student-trustee liaisons. The vote for the proposed three members was so close that the council decided to elect four members.
The trustee-student liaison committee was proposed Jan. 6 by Blackman as an alternative to a student representative to the Board of Trustees, which the board rejected. The liaisons hope to meet regularly with five trustees to discuss com-
University of Southern California
mon issues, but the trustees have yet to agree to the plan.
In other business at Tuesday’s special meeting, the council rejected Jim Lacy’s proposal for voluntary student fees. (The current $4.50 per semester programming fee is mandatory.)
Lacy, sophomore representative, argued that the fee should indicate voluntary membership in student government, but Blackman replied, “The only power the Associated Students have is their programming.” Joel Rosenzweig, vice-president for programs, said, “If you want to have a government, you’ve got to have taxation. The students voted to tax themselves (in a 1967 election).”
Lacy called the 8 yes-7 no vote a “moral victory.” His proposal needed a two-thirds majority to pass.
DAILY W TROJAN
VOL. LXIV
NO. 79
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1972
ACLU leader to speak
The national director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Charles Morgan, will discuss “The System: Why Don’t We Try It for a Change?” today at noon in Student Activities Center 204.
Morgan has argued several famous civil rights and civil liberties cases including national reapportionment before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the case involving the desegregation of the University of Alabama in 1963 when Gov. George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door.
His clients have included Muhammad Ali and Julian Bond. He also serves on the board of directors of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by the late Martin Luther King.
^ His speech is sponsored by the university’s Great Issues Forum. ^
Faculty Center asks for license to serve alcohol
Chicanos rap law profs
By RICHARD SIMON Staff Writer
Three members of the Chicano Law Students have criticized comments in Tuesday’s Daily Trojan by law professors on the organization’s 10-point minority admission plan.
The plan is designed to develop more lawyers for the Mexican-American community. The plan calls for the admission of 30 Chicanos for the coming academic year, the hiring a Chicano professor, and autonomous selection of Chicano students by the 20-member Chicano Law Student organization.
Terry Hatter, Jr., associate clinical professor of law and chairman ofthe Minority Admissions Committee, said in Tuesday’s article that the Chicano group already have representation on the admissions committee. The committee has three students and three faculty members, all of whom have a vote.
“This is a lie,” said Sam Paz. “Only the minority student of the particular ethnic group being interviewed has a vote.” It is, therefore, a three-to-one ratio and not three-to-three as implied by Hatter, Paz said.
Paz also criticized the interview committee for its selection of points for the applicants’ prediction index—a combination of his undergraduate grade point average and Law School Admission Test scores.
“Any points given to applicants are subject to the arbitrary, discretionary review of the minority admissions board, who in most circumstances will not participate in the interviews and will not have any knowledge of the applicant,” Paz said.
Robert Ellickson, assistant professor of law, said in Tuesday’s article that he is against autonomous selection of Chicano students by the Chicano Law Students. He said law schools should stay clear of ideology when considering admissions.
Paz said, The school promotes itself as being soli-
ally conscious and in the forefront of new evolutions in law.”
In advertising the Clinical Semester as a “socially relevant experience,” Paz said, the Law Center wants to attract socially conscious students.
“Chicanos do not recruit ideology any different from that which the curriculum promotes or the liberal professors espouse,” Paz said. Chicanos want to recruit individuals who express values that imply social consciousness, the same as theLaw Center, he said.
“I do not share the notion that the only people doing good are the ones back in the storefront law offices,” Ellickson said in Tuesday’s article.
Paz said Ellickson is being “narrow and restrictive” by believing Chicanos are in school only in order to return to the community as lawyers.
“It is obviously the inability of the faculty to understand the notion that Chicanos here prefer their people and families over the lust for money,” he said.
Paz criticized Hatter for saying law students should work for change within the system. He said that working within the system has been ineffective in the past, since the majority of law students with a voice in Law Center arrairs are white and not particularly concerned with minority affairs.
“There is no reason for the railroading that Ellickson has done in pushing his proposal down the throats of Chicanos by saying ‘try it, you’ll like it,’ while telling everyone we’re an isolated minority because we care about the type of legal services our people will get,” Paz said.
The Chicano Law Students challenged Profs. Hatter and Ellickson to a debate at their protest Saturday at the Law Center.
Ellickson said that too much coverage of the Chicano issue has been published already and he declined to comment further.
Governance systems hit
By MARY ANN GALANTE Associate City Editor
Members of the Faculty Center have applied for a liquor license to allow alcoholic beverages to be sold and served there.
The application has been submitted to the local Alcoholic Beverages Control Board for approval. If it is denied, the center may appeal, then take its case directly to Sacramento for a board hearing.
This is the second time an application has been submitted. The first attempt, in 1969. was rejected because the board determined that a license would be in violation of the California Penal Code.
Section 172a of the code forbids selling intoxicating liquor “within one and a half miles of the president’s office on a campus having an enrollment of more than 1.000 students.”
There is a loophole, however. Ifthe center can qualify as a nonprofit social club with dues of $50 a year per member, it may be granted a permit.
James McBath, speech com munication chairman and member of the center’s board, said he thinks the center will meet this loophole and be granted a permit.
“When we applied in 1969, we were working under the center's original constitution, which made it sound like an adjunct of the library.” said McBath. “The club has subsequently amended the charter.”
McBath said he feels tha cen ter’s new charter will enable it
------------------------------
ASSC post open
Applications for ASSC elections commissioner are now available in Student Union 309 and are due Thursday.
Three positions are open to students interested in establishing policy and guidelines for the spring student body
elections.
V_______________________________
to qualify as a social club.
Others are not as optimistic. John Brickner, senior special investigator in the ABC’s Crenshaw office, said he expects to deny the center’s application.
“Unless the Penal Code is changed, the USC application can’t be approved,” said Brickner. “The Penal Code says you can’t have a liquor license on university campuses. The Faculty Center doesn’t qualify as a faculty club, either, so there’s really no chance for approval.”
A member of the center’s license committee who asked to remain anonymous said if the application is rejected, the center will appeal, then go to court. “We’ll see if the court takes a different view from the board,” he said.
If the permit is granted, beer, wine and hard liquor will be served in the center. If it is denied, the center has 10 days to file for a hearing.
During the 1969 hearing, 75 members of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union showed up and ranted against the proposed license. “Teachers’ jobs are hard enough as it is without having their minds befuddled,” said Zola Meek, Southern California president of the Junior.
The center isn’t completely dry now. “Thirsty Thursdays” are observed, when faculty members can contribute $1 for all the liquor they want.
“The laws prohibit selling and serving alcohol on campuses,” said Robert Fendon Craig, management professor. “ ‘Thirsty Thursdays’ are conducted by a group who bring in their own cocktail ingredients and mix their own drinks.”
Faculty members generally are in favor of the application. Frederic C. Coonradt, journalism professor, said, “People have to walk clear over to Julie’s right now. I’m in favor, but I’ll bet Julie isn’t.”
By PETER WONG News Editor (This is the tenth in a series on university governance — the Editor.)
Besides the ineffectiveness of student government in representing the student viewpoint, there are several other reasons why governance of American universities needs improvement, experts in education say.
Most of these reasons do not apply to USC, for the major reason that the study of governance here was undertaken through the desire ofthe faculty and deans to develop order in the decision-making process. However, the general faults in the present-day university governance throughout the nation may be strong secondary factors in the drive for reform here.
Four reasons offered as explanation for poorly functioning governance systems are:
•	Though the university’s role in society has changed dras-
tically during the 1960s, the university has not modified its structure to meet the changing conditions.
•	The university administration will not permit students to share in decision-making, preferring that administrators and trustees hold such authority, with the faculty getting whatever is left over.
•	The members of the faculty will not cooperate with students, but insist that academic decisions be made by them and the administration, without student participation.
•	Joint faculty-student committees will work on problems, but their reports are slow to be acted upon by the appropriate university agency or administrator.
In support of the point that the university has not changed with the times. Daniel Bell, professor of sociology at Harvard University, wrote in an essay, “The American university has become a vast dumping ground
for tasks which the society could not perform elsewhere. The university has not resisted — in fact, it has often welcomed — the intrusions; but it has failed to adapt its structure to the new tasks.”
Both Bell and Morris Keeton, academic vice-president at Antioch College in Yellow Springs. Ohio, believe the university should accept the new challenges and change its internal organization accordingly.
“The campus is a public trust. Its function is primarily that of providing intellectual services. Things intellectual, however, cannot be separated or shut off from things social, emotional, and political.” Keeton wrote in a book, “Shared Authority on Campus,” the results of a study forthe American Association for Higher Education.
“The growing numbers of people and complexity of society, the continuing growth of knowledge and technological
(Continued on page 8)