Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / Oct. 25, 1971, edition 1 / Page 5
Part of University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
PointBlank October 25, 1971/the journal/page five ■ Copyright (c) 1971 by Andrew Shapiro Upperclassmen hurt by low Andrew Shapiro is a draft lawyer and co-author of “Mastering the Draft: A Comprehensive Guide for Solving Draft Problems” [626 pp. Avon paperback]. “PointBlank” is distributed by Access - The Communications Corporation. pages of opinion ^CC October 25,1971 Opinions of the Journal are expressed on its editorial pages. unsigned editorials are the ^ajority opinion of the Editorial °oard. letters and columns [^present only the opinions of the '^dividual writers. Opposing editorial viewpoints may be Phnted by contacting the Editor. fred dillahunt- Since the new draft law passed, upperclassmen have been too busy counting their blessings to notice what they have lost: a precious ace-in-the-hole known as the I-S (C) deferment. The 1-S (C) was a second lease on life for the student who failed to maintain the “satisfactory academic progress” essential to a continued II-S student deferment. A I-S (C) protected the student until he once again qualified to get his II-S back. Suppose a student failed to make satisfactory progress at the end of one academic year. Before his draft board found out and ordered him for induction, he would enter his next term of study. Having made a fresh start at satisfactory progress in a brand new term, the student’s prior slate had to be wiped clean — at least, temporarily. He was entitled to have his induction order cancelled and be deferred in Class I-S (C) until the end of the academic year. This breather gave the student time to make up lost credits. By the time his I-S (C) expired, he would once again be maintaining overall satisfactory progress and qualify for a renewed II-S. With little fanfare, the new draft law abolished the I-S (C). From now on, if you fall behind, or attend school part-time, you cannot wipe the slate clean by simply resuming anew satisfactory progress in a full-time course of study. Should you try this old approach and then receive an induction order, the order will not be cancelled. Your induction date will merely be postponed - normally until the end of the term and, in the case of seniors, until the end of the academic year. There is a crucial difference between a postponement and a I-S (C) cancellation. For all practical purposes, a cancelled induction order never existed. Its cancellation left you free to effect any change in your status, so that you would merit deferment by the time the I-S (C) expired. Not so when an induction order remains outstanding, and your induction date is merely postponed. Before you can get any deferment or exemption, you must prove to your board that “there has been a change in [your] status resulting from circumstances over which [you] had no control.” Such a change is hard to prove. Last spring, for instance, the Supreme Court decided that becoming a C.O. after receiving an induction order did not constitute an uncontrollable change in status. Similarly, any concerted improvement in academic progress is unlikely to result form circumstances over which a student has no control. The safest course in this season of the precarious II-S is to maintain satisfactlry academic progress at all cost. Selective Service Regulations mepure satisfactory progress according to a rigid formula: you must earn proportionate credits for each year in your academic program. For example, if you are in a four-year program, you must earn 25% of your degree credits after one academic year, 50% after your second year, and so forth. While draft boards apply this test rigidl}^, pouncing on students a few credits short, the courts have been much more solicitous. They have indicated that satisfactory progress is a question of fact that may vary with individual circumstances. Therefore, a student might still qualify for continued II-S — even if he failed the proportionate progress test — so long as his college certifies that he is expected to graduate on time, and it seems reasonably probable that he can succeed. The question of satisfactory progress, which will hound students for years, is about to shock some students this fall. Continued eligibility for the II-S is predicated upon the maintenance of satisfactory progress during the past academic year (1970-71). If you did not make satisfactory progress last year, and you are wondering why you have not yet received your II-S this year, there is a very good reason. On September 22 — one week before the new law was signed — Draft Director Curtis Tarr sent Local Board Memorandum 122 to his draft boards. It instructed them to: “Delay the ...reclassification into Class II-S of any registrant, eligible for such classification as an undergraduate, who ...entered college before the 1971 summer session but who during the 1970-71 regular academic year failed satisfactorily to pursue a full-time course of instruction...” The message is clear: your draft board is already starting to scrutinize student progress. The aboliriun of the I-S (C)just may be the incentive to touch off a rash of I-A reclassifications. Since draft boards follow their own rigid test of satisfactory progress - regardless of what the courts say — students may find themselves harrassed the way they once were when protesters were reclassified I-A as delinquents. Save our black colleges N.C.C.U., E.C.S.U., F.S.U., W.S.S.U., and A.&T. S.U. Those of you ^ ° nave just finished reading all those abbreviations are of course n I’n^ring what they stand for. They stand for: North Carolina Central y l'^®*’sity, Elizabeth City State University, Fayetteville State ^’versity, Winston Salem State University, A.&T. State University, stat^ nre the five predominately black colleges in tnis state that are supported. We, the members of the Black Student Union of feel that their continued existence as black institutions is being l,j f^^^ned by Governor Robert Scott’s proposed restructuring of sner education in the state. ® defend this accusation, let us first look at the reorganization plan deal with the question, “Why keep black schools anyway?” Gov November, the Board of Higher Education held a meeting with of,Scott. At the meeting, Scott discussed the need for re-organization education in the state. Since that meeting, Scott has moved to iniplement the restructuring of higher education. These are five currently being discussed by a committee appointed by Scott. iQo plans are: 1) a super board (a board of regents); 2) a large ggQ board of trustees for the hi^er education system based on ffo^'^^Phic representation and composed initially of representatives rggi of the local boards of trustees; 3) two boards of trustees; 4) of I nal boards of trustees; and 5) continuation of the present system agg boards with the Board of Higher Education as the coordinating £jj^^”®.last plan or proposal listed above (a stronger Board of Higher itijji^^bon) appears to be the only plan of the five that offers black ojjj ^bons the greatest possibility of expansion and development. The ofL ^ ‘our plans do not do this and, as a matter of fact, either of the Coll ^uur plans could facilitate the gradual disappearance of black viewing Scott’s plan, the next logical question might be, “Why ®Xist colleges anyway?” Now if you are one who feels that the Cou®^^® and survival of black people here in this state and in this by does not really matter, then your reply to the question of Minister of Information Black Student Union UNCC 9ort La9on,Gort,and dinny be him that first cries, ‘Hold, enough?* “Why keep black colleges anyway?” probably would speak to the need for abolishing them. On the other hand, if you are one who feels that the existence and survival of black people here in this state and in this country is a legitimate and valid endeavor, then you might be in favor of the continued existence of black schools because you can see the black college as being an educational tool in helping black people to better understand themselves and their role in society vis-a-vis their blackness. One of the main challenges of the black colleges of today is the responsibility of redefining an educational philosophy in line with the needs and aspirations of black people. If the black college can be allowed to redefine a new educational philosophy relevant to black people, then its validity will have been established. But how can the black college be allowed to do this if it is not even allowed to exist? Because of our concern for the future of black institutions and education in general, we are in favor of the following recommendations being incorporated into any bill for the restructuring of higher education in the state of North Carolina: 1) That any restructuring of higher education should guarantee 80% or more black representation on all local trustee boards of tax supported predominately black universities and colleges; 2) That these local boards be financed and authorized to utilize the services of scholars and community personnel in restructuring higher education for the black universities; 3) That a minimum of 30% of any state-wide central governing board be black; 4) That a minimum of 30% of any administrative staff for the governing board be black; 5) The new bill of governance should be flexible enough to permit new programs, as local boards recognize local and special needs; 6) The restructuring bill should guarantee the right of each state-supported university to make a direct appeal to the legislative appropriations committee; and 7) An open admissions policy should not be ruled out of a bill on restructuring. A selective and rigid admissions policy would be tragic for blacks due to past educational inequities and impoverished socio-economic conditions. Well, I don't. ■ ;ow about the accommodations down there... but the service is Past erxxigh.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 25, 1971, edition 1
5
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75