opinion
Battle over, but IFC policy war continues
Noting the Incidental Fee Committee’s recent
rejection of the Student Genealogical As
sociaion’s goals, we wonder why the same goals
were approved when the group called itself the
Latter Day Saints' Student Association.
In a dramatic change of opinion, the Inciden
tal Fee Committee rejected funding goals for the
Mormons Tuesday. And while we applaud the final
verdict, we still question the reasoning used to get
there.
Committee members seem bent on maintain
ing the illusion of consistency. The three members
who reversed their earlier votes say there is a lack
of student interest in the SGA's goals.
But the rejected goals are virtually identical to
the goals approved for the LDSSA, and those
vote-changing committee members haven’t ex
plained why they felt student interest was suf
ficient two weeks ago.
One viable theory for the sudden change is
that the IFC ran scared from veto threats by ASUO
Pres. Dave Eaton. Perhaps committee members
realized the renamed group’s goals were similar
enough to the originals that Eaton’s veto threat
still applied. Rejecting the goals was a simple way
to put the controversial issue to rest.
Unfortunately the committee didn’t clarify its
hazy policy in rejecting the SGA’s goals. By dis
carding the goals on student-interest grounds, the
committee failed to address the religion vs. culture
question.
So where’s the consistency?
The IFC is no closer to answering policy
questions posed by the LDSSA request than it was
when the Campus Crusade for Christ made similar
pleas last term.
The root of the problem, a hazy IFC funding
policy, is still on record. The committee will fund
groups that are primarily cultural, not religious,
the policy states. But the LDSSA demonstrated
the ease with which any group can claim a “un
ique culture.” Conceivably, every religion in the
world can meet that criterion if its goals are
worded in IFC-acceptable language.
Inconsistencies in following that policy have
rendered it even less feasible. Campus Crusade
for Christ was denied funding. The Muslims’ goals
were approved. The Mormons’ goals were ap
proved then rejected, but not in accordance with
the culture-religion policy.
The IFC needs a new, specific, workable
policy. It also needs members who are unafraid to
research funding applicants instead of obtaining
information for the first time in the meeting room.
A drastic change of opinion ended the fund
ing hopes of the Mormons. A drastic change of
policy is now needed to end goal-hearing confu
sion.
V
va jrs
Hostage hoopla
I write this to say "fooey” to the mind
dulling propaganda staged by the media
(as a tool to revivie patriotism) about the
hostage crisis Not that I don’t personally
sympathize with the sufferings of the
hostages, but far more significant and
newsworthy is the massive sufferings of
third world populations as a result of
much more serious and devastating form
of political captivity. People rave about
the 52 hostages, but what of the U.S.
supported slaughter of people in El Sal
vador fighting for basic human needs?
Politically and economically exploited
people get angry and become willing to
fight and die to end their misery. The
media and our political leaders refuse to
view the Iranian captors in this manner,
but instead explain they are irate bar
barians and call them “savages.” But
who is the real savage in terms of econ
omic exploitation and political
domination?
Robbie Post
Sophomore, Economics and Sociology
And five co-signers
An elusive ideal
I was reminded of the elusive ideal of
"responsible fair play" upon reading an
essay sponsored by the American
Federation of Teachers in the Jan. 19
issue of “The Chronicle of Higher
Education." The piece is entitled "The
Vulnerable Academy" and was written by
a mathematician, Robert M Nielsen, and
an historian, Irwin H. Polishook
The following observations, based
loosely on selected parts of the com
mentary identified above, are relevant to
us here at the University — as well as
elsewhere in the groves of academe.
Regarding the jailing, not long ago, of
Prof. James A Dinnan for refusing to
divulge his vote in the denial of promo
tion and tenure to Maija Blaubergs at the
University of Georgia, it should be noted
that.
The right of professors to recommend
who should be retained as teach
ers in American higher education is
indispensable to preserving the integrity
of the academic process. Freedom from
outside pressure must be granted if the
quality and function of higher education
in a free society are to be maintained.
I
On the other hand, fair procedures
should be established so that an in
dividual who is not recommended for
retention on a faculty can learn the rea
sons supporting such a judgment — and
then decide whether or not to mount an
appeal. Was the determination in accord
with accepted canons of academic
freedom? Did it reflect holistic consider
ation of professional performance? Were
peer evaluations free of malice, bias and
arbitrary discrimination?
In short, an adequate “due process"
structure requires that the reasons for
negative personnel actions be clearly
stated. Only then can those receiving
unfavorable evaluations decide intel
ligently about whether to dispute the
appraisals in question.
Accordingly, while the appropriate
ness of not disclosing the personal iden
tities of those who vote pro and con on a
personnel action can be defended (up to
a point, in my opinion), it is also of
paramount importance that we maintain
a balanced perspective and affirm that
“the fabric of academic life is no stronger
than its own internal commitment to a fair
treatment of the humblest professor”
(page nine).
Ronald J. Rousseve, Ph.D.
Professor of Counselor Education
: ENTERED THE CVAl OFFICE, THE CHAIR— HlS CHAIR!.
$AT WW BEHIND THE PRESIDENTS DESK— |K DESK
vm,gee!1 he Gulped,'m is it,.,this is really if"
■ -'mimsm*
■'muGOSH, HESMDGRIMLT, MUNMfHHD
' OUT BT STANDING HERE!' THE RIONE RWG,<=
jPPHGAN
TMftrin<NAHCrB33
Iglenn boetteher
even editors get the blues
Quack!
Once the word was little more than the
most-celebrated utterance in any duck’s
vocabulary. But a new campus publica
tion has given it an extra meaning.
More than just a few tail feathers were
trimmed in the Emerald offices last week
when the first issue of Quack - a ”pre
Mother’s Day” tour de force — hit the
campus newsstands.
“Why in the hell haven't we been
covering international news,” screamed
the Emerald editor
He didn’t wait for an answer. We knew
excuses were pointless.
Quack, the new alternative student
Page 4
publication, had stolen a huge chunk of
our audience — those students with a
burning need for in-depth international
news coverage - while we had settled
for covering only campus news.
According to an editor’s statement in
the first issue, Quack will give students
the international news they don't get
from the regular campus paper. Judging
from the first issue, Quack's staff is
keeping down reporter costs by borrow
ing international news and related pho
tographs from wire reports that appear in
other papers.
We should have thought of that first,”
lamented the editor. "So the quacks
out-hustled us this time.” The resemb
lance to William Randolph Hearst was
startling.
Some of us said that maybe wire ser
vice reports aren't really that great.
Maybe they don’t really provide all that
accurate a picture of international
events, we suggested meekly.
"Listen,” the editor roared. "Those
wire service reporters are just like us -
they’re objective.
"But if it’ll make you feel better, we’ll
hire correspondants to scour the globe
for hard-hitting international news that
students can trust."
We asked about the astronomical
costs of broadening the Emerald’s scope
so drastically. "We ll triple the size of the
advertising department,” snapped the
editor.
Well, what if the student advertising
market is already saturated and we can’t
triple ad sales. "Quit picking nits,” he
exploded "Be realistic!”
Then we argued in vain that students
might actually benefit from a larger var
iety of campus publications. Maybe
students need other points of view, fresh
perspectives — no matter how lackadai
sical. Maybe the Emerald isn’t enough,
we whispered.
We probably shouldn’t have said that