Page 2
Editorials
We stand firmly behind the April 15 article onMaintenance by Hiratsuka.
Hiratsuka. We believe that a careful reading will show that
no attempt was made to malign the Maintenance Department or
its employees.
The intent of the Maintenance article was to explore an area
of student dissatisfaction. Concern about maintenance service
had been conveyed to the Guilfordian by several students.
Response to expressed concerns is the primary functionof the
Guilfordian.
Mr. Hiratsuka has done an objective job of reporting. The
matter is being investigated by an administrative committee.
We have received and published numerous articles in support of
the Maintenance Department. We would like to see the matter
pursued to the Business Office from which Maintenance takes it
orders. If indeed constructive communication has been
stimulated by Mr. Hiratsuka's article, we congratulate him for
his work in bringing these matters to light.
The Senate Plan for the use of over $60,000 in student
activities fees was formulated in a most unsatisfactory way. The
Senate, or rather the minimum necessary for a quorum, was
bullied by BASIB and misguided by administrative enrollment
projections. The revised budget is a pathetic attempt to placate
those who scream loudest, without any effort to explore the
reasons behind the screaming or the needs of other
organizations.
Worse yet is the creation of a fund for the furnishing of
Founders with the money which rightfully belongs to the
organizations whose budgets have been slashed. Organizations
will now have fine furniture to sit upon while deciding how to
cut back services to students.
Guilford students must demand more responsible
representation in Senate. You will surely be taxed $66 for
Student Activities next year, make sure you are represented in
the allocation of this money.
Guilford College and all institiutions of higher learning face
two choices. They can continue to require each individual to
absorb a particular body of scholarship. They can continue to
operate on the same unexamined and unproven premises of
liberal arts education: that formal education facilitates one's
mental development and that required courses broaden one's
interests. While proclaiming these benefits, they can continue,
in effect, to prepare people primarily for graduate school,
teaching, or other careers in the academy.
Colleges have another option, however. They possess an
accumulation of capital, information, intelligent people, and
ideas. They can allow the student to draw upon these
tremendous resources in the manner -- scholarly or otherwise --
which best meets his needs. Each individual should be able to
pursue his interests through any combination of formal courses,
independent studies, and nonacademic activity off campus. We
point out that one develops and uses his mind just as much in
nonacademic pursuits: business, social work, journalism, etc.
Furthermore, the proof of broadened interests lies not in taking
required courses, but in what one does after taking them. The
student who completes a fine arts requirement but never again
goes to a play or museum has not broadened his interests.
Guilford's internship program, scheduled to begin next year,
may provide one way for the student to shape his education to
his needs. We hope the program is a precedent, not a token; we
also hope it is not ruined by bureaucracy or insufficient funding.
Beyond that, we hope Guilford will give the individual
student more control over the whole of the education which is
nominally his, and for which he spends four years of his time
and 12,000 dollars of his parents' money.
The Guilfordian
Letters to the Editor
Tenure System
Dear Editor:
One of the aspects of
academic life at Guilford
which deserves more attention
is the tenure system. There
are several inconsistencies in
this system which need
re-evaluation. Whatever the
official position of the College
is on this issue, there is a
professor who was seemingly
asked to leave an administra
tive post because of incompe
tence in this position, but was
retained as a professor
because of the tenure system.
This shuffling and rearranging
may suit the needs of the
tenure committee, but it does
not necessarily represent the
best interests of the students.
Guilford College has the
reputation of being a good
school, providing quality
Guilford College has the
reputation of being a good
school, providing quality
education, and employing
competent and qualified
professors. This reputation
could easily become tarnished
because of instances like the
one previously mentioned.
I am asking the promotion
and tenure committee to
reassess its procedures and
values. Continuation of the
present procedures could
result in a lowering of the
currently excellent teaching
standards, thereby reducing
the overall quality and
effectiveness of a Guilford
college education. I would like
to offer some possible solution
to this problem: 1) greater
student input through the
"parallel" tenure committee
and open solicitation of
student opinion on those
professors in question. 2)
Demand that each professor
provide a syllabus at the
beginning of each couse. 3)
Place more emphasis on the
teacher evaluation surveys,
especially the portion dealing
THE GUILFOKDiAN
New* EdMar..................... Jm Hlreteelui
EAlift.. Jdtailw
Sparta EAmt.m Pat Tiwuwi
PliiUyfk) Steve Cmty, Tomny Le
Staff. JLeeVe Zetdla, Imey Swan, Site Rire, Aegela
Laatx, Steve Matkk David Sctt, Tobv Gearfc*rt
Sara Dalcber, fharlna TUbaeC. Amctte Greea
The CriMki ia pabHebed weakly except fet
exaariaatlea perleda aad vacatlena. The Cdtfenttaa la net
mm official pablratlae of Gaflfard Ceßege, aad the
eplaleaa expreaeed herein are eoley theee el the tdlaia
This is the last Guilfordian of the school year. We have
worked hard and are very proud of the Guilfordian. We have
viewed the Guilfordian as a forum for community concerns
limited only by the community's willingness to participate.
There has been so much to do and so few to do it.
We would like to thank those who, by their encouragement,
ciriticism, and concern, have made the Guilfordian less
impossible.
with the question of whether
or not the course has followed
the proposed syllabus. 4)
Incorporate a more flexible
tenure plan allowing the
cancellation of contracts in
cases of incompetence or
unsatisfactory performance.
Margaret Murphy
Maintenance
To the Editor:
In the April 15th edition of
the Guilfordian an article was
published concerned with
College maintenance services.
In that article, reporter
Hiratsuka suggested that at
least some community resi
dents question the integrity of
College maintenance person
nel. This allegation, not
substantiated in the article,
prompted the maintenance
staff to request an investiga
tion by the Administration of
the College. While the
investigation is not complete,
the College wishes to indicate
that it has found no evidene to
date to suggest dishonesty on
the part of maintenance
employees. In fact, many of
these individuals have worked
for the College for years and
have exemplary personnel
records. The Administration
wishes to endorse the integrity
of these employees and to
express regret for any
embarrassment which the
Guilfordian article may have
caused them or their families.
The College will continue to
review the adequacy and
efficiency of its maintenance
and repairs program, and I
would be pleased to interview
any person with concerns
about this area of the college
service.
Bruce B. Stewart
Assistant to the President
April 22, 197S
Biology Majors!
Protest
Dear Editor,
A few weeks ago, several!
other biology majors and ||
learned that, true to rumor,
Dr. Jams Parker was not
having his contract renewed.
It seems that there were a
few people on the evaluating
committee who had had Dr.
Parker for Cell Biology 113j
and had received mediocre on
bad grades in that course, and
decided that they could "get
back" at Dr. Parker by
working within the committee
to recommend that his
contract not be renewed. They
justified their recommenda
tion by saying that Dr.
Parker's lectures were not up
to par and that his tests were
overly difficult.
First of all, these persons on
the committee, (all nonbiology
majors), were ill-advised to
take Cell Biology. Contrary to
the fact that it is the lowest
numbered biology course
offered, it is by no means an
introductory course, and is
usually taken by biology
majors after they have had
other biology courses in
addition to chemistry. It soon
became apparent that these
non-biology majors were not
in a crib-course, and were not
going to be hand fed by Dr.
Parker in lecture, so at the end
of the course they severely
downgraded him on the
evaluation and worked within
the committee to have him
dismissed. They succeeded for
a variety of reasons -- none of
which should be condoned by
a Quaker institution like
Guilford.
One of the things which the
committee was to do was to
conduct interviews with stu
dents who had taken Dr.
Parker's courses. Dr. Parker
provided the committe with a
list of students which he
thought were either "for" or
"against" his method of
teaching. It was later
discovered that some of the
interviews were conducted by
phone, which is not a
recommended procedure. Al
so during an open interview,
the members on the commit
tee panel accepted, it seems
with pleasure, the comments
from students who disliked
Dr. Parker's method of
teaching, while totally ingnor
ing the comments of those
students who supported Dr.
Parker. So it appears that the
committee had already de
cided on the "verdict" before
the interview was even begun.
Furthermore, no effort was
made to talk with biology
Cont. on Page 7