Newspapers / St. Andrews University Student … / Sept. 14, 1972, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of St. Andrews University 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
PAGE TWO THE LANCE THURSDAY, SEPT. 14, 197 THE LANCE staff Editor Jeff Neill Associate Editor Marshall Gravely Associate Editor Elaine Thomas Assistant Editor Ligon Perrow Business Manager Gordon Dixon Circulation Manager Cathy Lamont Advisor Mr. Fowler Dugger The Editorial staff’s intent is to maintain professional stan dards within the guidelines put forth by the Code of Respon sibility. Signed articles reflect the opinion of the author, where as unsigned editorials and articles reflect the majority opinion of the staff. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the College. Letters to the editor and articles are welcomed though subject to space limitations. Subscription rates 32.50 per semester. Advertising rates $ .90 per column inch. Semester contracts, $ .80 per column inch. ‘-''rcK/WCf£> w I handle n^riuie th/sjobi A.lV *■ mid am Sayt... Aren't you Zeus, Tfiats iJi' one meT lost/ his job? e I'm Jupiter.^ About this Which job—I'Ve is...? got just one questicjnt Are these cats an Equal Op Yearbook Editor Answers Critics, Explains Plans Publications Should Remain Independent BY MARSHALL GRAVELY . . The publications should be under Senate Control. The publications board should be done away with, because the mem bers of it are so closely involved that they aren’t true repre sentatives of the student body. The budget should also be under control because the publications are self-perpetuating organi zations and need no money. . . ” , This quote states the position of Rod Brown, Student Associa tion Treasurer, about another facet of this week’s budget con troversy. The proposal was to come before the Student Life Committee this week, which has the final authority in such budget and procedural matters, and all this before the new budget was made public or even reviewed and approved by the Senate. The whole question of student government control of publica tions runs directly against the opinion expressed by the Joint Statement On Rights and Freedoms of Students of the National Student Association, as follows; . Whenever possible the student newspaper should be an independent corporation financially and legally separate from the university. Where financial and legal autonomy is not possible, the institution, as the publisher of student publica tions. may have to bear the legal responsibility for the contents of the publications.” (Saltire, page 46.) The NSA proposal expresses the current status of the organization known as the Publications Board. If the Senate gains control over the allocation and distribution of funds for the publications, as Brown advocates, then they have control of the editorial and news policies of the publications, especially the newspaper. All this does not exactly mean that we of the Publications Board see grave threats to freedom of the press. Afther all, what big issues does the newspaper grapple with? None, at this time. Still, there are reasons why the two should be separate. An analysis of Brown’s opinion will show two very fundamental reasons why. First, the members are closely involved with the publications simply because there are no other students who are involved in and/or interested enough to be members of the board. The total staffs of the newspaper and the annual must struggle to exceed fifteen students. Secondly, the publications are not self-perpetuating. There IS no way lor the paper to be financially independent because of its appeal to students and because of the current situation that exists between the campus and the town. A third reason for separation would be that the Senate has enough problems of its own. If anything around here should be t^en over, they shouldn’t be in charge of the operation. often seems that they themselves should be dissolved or taken over. Finally, the very definition of publications require the in- de^ndence of the newspaper and yearbook. If the respective editors are threatened with financial insecurity and inter ference by uninformed, unqualified outsiders, they are not editors they are puppets. ’ Separation of powers is a basicquality of all quasi-democratic mstitutions, and we, all opinions to the contrary, are no different. The publications have their problems, but so does the Senate Iii this case, each group has only to be concerned about their oto. Leaders Need To Realize A Definite Commitment BY KAREN KENNEDY There seems to be a raging controversy over the annual — both last year’s and this year’s. I feel that this controversy is raging in spite of the facts rather than because of them, for the sole reason that the facts have not been made pub lic yet. A poll was circulated earlier this week, as a joint effort of the Senate and the “Lamp & Shield”. However, my wishes as editor of the “Lamp & Shield” were ignored. A poll was drawn up on Sunday night which was satisfactory both to Miles Weaver, president of the Senate, and myself. Between Sunday night and the time the poll was given out the wording was changed, a fact of which I was not informed. I also asked Miles Weaver to delay giving out the form until after this Issue of “The Lance” so that the students could make their choices on the basis of all the facts involved. Miles told me that he felt it was a waste of time; that a ‘ ‘Dialogue’ ’ could be put out on Tuesday. The ques tion here arises: If we are not to use our school newspaper to cover school controversies why do we have one? As editor of St. Andrews expects a cer tain degree of social and aca demic responsibility to be de monstrated by its students.' There is an area of voluntary responsibility though that each student should cope with for it is not written out for us. That is the area of responsibility each student has toward SA. It seems to us in this area the degree of responsibility is in direct proportion to what each student perceives to be his or her relationship and commit ment to SA. The necessity of student gov ernment leaders to define what their commitment and relation ship is to the college is more pressing than for the average student for it is these students who make decisions that af fect the overall welfare and future of the college as well as reflect the responsibility the student body is capable of. St. Andrews has experienced fi nancial difficulties for the past several years. While most small private colleges have gone further into the red, SA has made steady gains toward (Continued to Page 3) the Annual, responsible for its Olympic Tragedy UnmentionedHere BY MARSHALL GRAVELY Much has already been writ ten about the recent events at the Mimich Olympics where ter rorist action and police reaction led to the deaths of 11 Israe lis and 5 Palestinian terrorists. The entire world was shocked and sickened at the tragedy— except for St. Andrews. As usual, some students were con cerned while the great majority were numb to whatever was happening. This is not the place or time to begin attacking apathy, es pecially not by using this tragedy as a pretext for con clusions. Still, it does seem that if 17 students had been killed by troops in a campus riot, everyone would know what was going on. Why, then, did most peo ple fail to notice the events in Munich? It seems they are not interested in a bunch of jocks involved in nationalistic contests while covered by the mantle of sham amateurism. Not even when these sports events are used as an interna tional forum for all types of political and military concerns. Nothing anybody can write wUl bring back the dead or help ease the sorrow for their fami lies. No amount of concern or information can lessen the problems that drove the Pales tinians to violence such as this. At SA we go them all one bet ter. No good can be done, but it won’t matter, since very few know what’s happening anyway. It seems rather a sad comment on all us Involved students. publication I did not feel that waiting two or three days to al low all people interested a chance to express their views in “The Lance” would unalterably delay the progress of the an nual. Therefore, I do not feel that the poll would be truly representative of the student’s wishes and I withdraw the spon sorship and/or support of the “Lamp & Shield” from it. We will be putting out a poll of our own in the very near future. In order that the students may make an intelligent response to any further poll I would like to make clear the &ctors I see involved in this issue. There is a change planned in the 1973 “Lamp & Shield” format as most everyone knows by now. The change was made in order that we could make a cut of $3,00 in our budget which could then be rechanneled into other student activities. We decided for a paperback cover because of the cut in cost, and I wish to clarify that a paperback an nual is not like a paperback book. Companies who publish annuals know the function of an annual and are not going to publish anything that will im mediately fall apart. The paper back we speak of is a thick, sturdy bristol board. As an nuals are not in constant use I ses no reason why this should not last for twenty years or more. The cut in paper was made, not only for the cost decreases, but because we felt we could cover the year ade quately in the smaller amount of pages. The reason we went to this format was not todeem- phasize the importance of the annual but to cut our budget in order that the money could be spent on the other projects of the Student Association, If we are really concerned about organizations on this campus, would it not make more sense to let them have more money to be effective in their activi ties rather than take this money away from them in order that they could be pictured in a hard back yearbook? If we revert to a hardback at the present time, we will have to get the $3000 back from a variety of clubs, thus cutting some vital functions they have planned for this money. I think at this point, it comes down to a question of whether we are in an organiza tion for the good we can do and the good times we can enjoy now or whether we belong to an or ganization to get our picture in the yearbook, so we can have an ego-trip looking back 20 years from now. Some of these clubs will be cut to a zero budget if this money is reallocated to the aiuiual. Another question being raised is the fact that some people did not like last year’s annual and feel they should have been asked what they would like in it. These people seem to have forgotten that a poll was given to determine the wishes of other students before that yearbook was planned. Of the more than 800 given out I received ap proximately 40 back. Therefore a great deal of guesswork as to what would please ensued, as we could not feel that 40 ’was representative of the school I thought that I detected a change in the attitudes of students of St. Andrews and tried to alter the yearbook to suit that change. Our central theme, carried out in the introduction and on the di vision pages, was an attempt to let the students speak of SA as they saw it, whether positive or negative; an attempt at an honest assessment of SA by the people who make up the school, rather than having one person Impose a onesided view over many people's experiences and thoughts during that year. In response to Monday’s dia logue’s contention that the an nual was a “. . . complicated collage of unrelated photos.., carelessly selected without any objective in mind,” I can only say that the pictures were care fully selected with definite ob jectives, an attempt to capture the everyday spirit of SA rather than an artificially staged and photographed moment of people standing together. It is up to you to decide which is a more “meaningful memory” to you. As to the contention that it was “easy on the annual staff,” I can only say that putting out a yearbook with only a very minimal skeleton staff as has been done for at least the past three years is never easy on the staff. Perhaps one who has never worked on planning, photographing, and laying out a yearbook, as well as supervis ing mailing and picture taking, does not understand: . the dif ficulties and hard work in volved. Those students who do not feel that the yearbook represented what they wanted and are wor ried about the contents of this year’s book should also keep In mind the fact that all positions on the staff were open last spring and we did not have even one application. At the present time we would be glad to have any one interested on the staff of the yearbook. There will be an organizational meeting soon. Johnson: We Can Find Compromise Editor- Everyone is shouting their opinions about the latest year book and the proposals for the new one. The time has come to talk about what we want, why, and how much it will cost us, As 1 understand it the annual staff has sought to cut its own budget roughly $12,000 to about $9,000. The $12,000 figure is about one third of all the money budgeted to student activities. (Student Center Board,Dorm Budgets, Clubs & Organiza tions, and etc.) A cut in the yeartook budget would release more funds for such uses. But what kind of yearbook do you want? Until this present emotional controversy there (Continued to Page 4)
St. Andrews University Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 14, 1972, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75