I
the journal sept. 13, 1971 page seven
later life not
' i'>iore or less), but
ni^tmare
'' snd absurdity.”
“The receipt of the grade ‘N’ or ‘NC’ (no
credit) is not valued in the same manner as these
grades are in the undergraduate curriculum.
Receiving these grades on an undergraduate course
simply indicates that the students has an absence
of credit and is considered in the same manner as
if the undergraduate student had never enrolled
for the course.
“In the University’s graduate program,
however, the grade of ‘N’ or ‘NC’ carries a
drastically different value. For graduate work,
these grades may indicate that the student has in
fact taken the course and has been awarded the
academic value of zero on the numerical scale. On
this basis, the. Graduate Committee of the
University on January 15, 1970, determined that:
Upon receiving two grades of ‘NC’ the students
advisory committee shall review the progress of
the student and must recommend a course of
action which may include probation (to be defined
f>y the committee) or termination of enrollment.
“The committee of the Graduate Faculty of the
College of Business Administration reviewed the
Work of its students whose professors had reported
their substandard work by the award of the grade
N’ and the committee concluded that the level of
academic performance of Charlie Sutton was such
that he sliould be terminated from the graduate
program.
“For that reason, Charlie was notified by Dr.
Uaymond Turner, the Director of Graduate
Studies, by letter dated June 10, 1971, that his
enrollment in the graduate program was in fact
terminated for failure to meet the graduate
Program standards for continued enrollment.
“Charlie then applied for admission to the
University to the undergraduate curriculum
leading to a second baccalaureate degree. His
application and his previous academic records,
noth as an undergraduate student and in the
University’s graduate program, were reviewed in
•he manner provided in the catalogue (pages
°4-65). As a result of that evaluation, Charlie’s
application was denied for academic reasons.
‘Charlie also applied for admission as a special
^Indent, as his Report indicated that he planned to
"O' His application for special student was denied
reason of an admissions pohcy established
J^ecember 12, 1969 by the Admissions Advisory
nniinittee, which excludes any applicants for
?Peci^ student status who are academically
neligible to return to their previous institutions.
“This review of the backgrbund behind
cademic termination is not intended in any way
® embarrass Charlie personally. A number of
People have, however, implied that there was some
nsidious plot on the part of the administration to
^ itiove Charlie from office. This is clearly not the
rather it is an unfortunate example of a
of removal of himself from office by virtue
his termination from the University for
‘‘Cademic reasons.
th remaining issue raised by the Report to
th^ Legislators is the question of whether
(Jn- ^'^‘^nistration has any responsibilities to the
jj and the students with respect to
fification when an elected official of student
vernment becomes ineligible.
The law of the State of North Carolina in this
clear. The General Assembly, which
‘ablished all branches of the Consolidated
University, determined that the Trustees shall
govern the operations of all facets of the
University. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 116-3 et seq.) As
provided by the bylaws of the Board of Trustees
of the University of North Carolina, the operating
responsibility for each component institution of
the Consohdated University is delegated to the
Chancellor of that institution. Section 3-3 of the
Trustees’ Bylaws provide that the Chancellor
exercises
‘full authority in the regulation of student
conduct and in matters of student discipline in
that institution. In the discharge of this duty,
delegation of such authority may be made by the
Chancellor to faculty committees and to
administrative or other officers of the institution,
or to agencies of student government, in such
maimer and to such extent as may be the
Chancellor be deemed necessary and expedient.’
(Emphasis added.)
The Chancellor has substantial responsibility
invested upon him by the laws of the State of
North CaroUna. The history of UNCC clearly
reflects the Chancellor’s desire to delegate
responsibility in the area of student conduct to
appropriate student organizations and individuals.
But when as in the case of Charlie, any member of
this academic community becomes ineligible to
retain his membership in the community, the
Chancellor, or some official delegated by the
Chancellor, has the primary responsibility for
notifying all interested persons of the relevant
circumstances. To this end, the Chancellor and
Vice Chancellor Cone delegated authority to men,
as Dean of Students, to notify Charlie that he was
unable to continue to be president of the student
body. Charhe was in fact notified on June 17,
1971.
“1 trust that you will rally behind student
government and make every effort to assist the
new administration in the appropriate discharge of
its responsibilities.
“Thank you for your interest in the University.”
James Dennis Rash
Unfortunately, students did not rally behind
the pleas of Dean Rash as expected. Instead, more
heated arguments erupted and the Student
Legislature hired Charlie Sutton as a “counselor”
until his status was further clarified.
Another part of the drama was enacted by the
Administration on that same day. Dated July 7,
1971, they released to the news media a Statement
On Status Of Charles Sutton. It was apparently in
response to rumors that Charlie would try to
govern the Student Body as a non-student. Charlie
assured me on several occasions that this action
was never considered as a viable alternative at any
time. Their statement read as follows:
“The Administration of the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte deeply regrets that the
academic status of Mr. Charles Sutton and his
resulting loss of a position in the Student
Government Association have become an issue. His
challenge on these points exposes his academic
performance to public knowledge.
“Since Mr. Sutton has raised the issue, it must
be pointed out that because of his academic
performance in the Master of Management
program of the College of Business
Administration, he is no longer qualified to
continue as a student. Also because of his total
academic performance, he has been denied
admission to other academic programs.
“The University has not disclosed the precise
nature of Mr. Sutton’s academic performance
because of a normal practice of maintaining the
confidentiality of student records except where
the student is in accord with disclosure.
“We will reveal pertinent facts about Mr.
Sutton’s academic record with his concurrence or
if circumstances necessitate.
“The constitution of the student body
stipulates that a president of the Student
Government Association must be a student and
maintain an appropriate academic average to
continue in office.
“Therefore Mr. Sutton is no longer an officer of
the Student Government Association, and the vice
president succeeds him in office.
“Furthermore, the rights and responsibilities of
student officers derive from the delegation by the
Chancellor to them of certain of his perogatives.
“The Chancellor cannot in good faith and will
not delegate responsibilities dealing with student
funds, student discipline, and recommendations
for appointment to key University committees to
a non-student.”
The statement was unsigned but the wording
and tone implied that it was carefully prepared for
public consumption. The University is
tremendously publicity conscious, as we shall see.
Charlie had been denied admission to the
political science department as an undergraduate
during this interim period. Dr. Loyns, head of the
Department of Political Science, agreed to accept
him as an undergraduate student. But, when the
offer was presented to Vice Chancellor McEniry, it
was disapproved for “academic reasons.” The
writer had an interview with Dr. McEniry
concerning these “reasons,” but found we could
not discuss them without Charlie’s permission.
Apparently, the answer was in Charlie’s record of
academic undergraduate work; I asked for and
received from Charlie his undergraduate record. By
studying it, a few ideas about why he was refused
admission come to liglit. But, before tha is brought
out, another portion of the story was unfolding -a
side-track that didn’t work.
A mere six days after releasing their Statement
on the status of Charles Sutton, the
Administration sent a Memorandum to several
student leaders (including this writer) asking for
their participation on a Rathskeller Concept
Committee. They must have felt that all the
controversy over Charlie was settled and that it
would be a good time to organize the Student
Government and students into a new project, one
they had expressed a valid interest in.
The Memorandum itself is a masterpiece of
bureaucratic bumbling and is printed below in
entirety:
“This memorandum is to request that you serve
on the Rathskeller Concept Committee. The
general charge of this committee is to prepare
recommendations to be presented through
appropriate channels concerning the proposed
development of a rathskeller-coffee house in the
basement of the dorm cafeteria.
“After this committee has developed its
recommendations, it will present its findings to
Vice Chancellor Cone who, in turn, will consider
the findings and proposals with Vice Chancellor
Vaughn before seeking approval of the Chancellor.
If the Chancellor approves the recommendations,
the program will be referred to Vice Chancellor
Vaughn who is the University’s liaison with the
Department of Administration-Division of
Property Control.
“Unless you advise Dean Rash’s office to the
contrary, we will assume that you are willing to
serve on this committee. The first committee
meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, July
20, 1971 in Room 233 of the University Center.
“We thank you in advance for your assistance
in this project.”
The letter originated from the Dean of Students
Rash and Stan Patterson, although Stan merely
signed it; the writing is clearly Rash’s. Below was
my reply to the Memorandum, dated July 19,
1971, and forwarded to the originators:
“Thank you for asking me to serve on the
Rathskeller Concept Committee. However, 1 must
decline for two reasons: first, 1 feel my position is
such that a conflict-of-interest could develop from
my serving; and, secondly, 1 cannot in good
conscience serve on what I believe is a red-tape
machine that neither significantly adds to the
institution or its already cumbersome committee
overkill.
“Unfortunately, I very strongly view this
committee, and all attempts to organize interest in
it, as a part of the blossoming bureacracy at
UNCC. The idea of a Rathskiller -regardless of its
recreational value- is not consistent with the more
pressing problems at this institution which should
be receiving our full attention. Students desire to
work, with power and significant influence, in the
academic decision-making that takes place daily,
without our advice or consultation. To attempt to
channel our energy and interest into a purely
social and inane setting such as organizing a
Rathskeller is condescending to our abilities. To
think that we wish to forget, or would forget, very
important questions such as monies, academic
grades, testing methods, student government of
student affairs -I believe this is implied in this
type of committee organization.
“Look at the approval/disapproval scheme of the
committee. Is there any chance that what they
want to do will be allowed? Yes, if all those who
have nothing to do with the Rathskeller approve.
In loco parentis is dead. We neither wish for games
to play while Administrative officials determine
the future of our education nor will intelligent,
perceptive students be dupted into such petty
“childplay.”
“The time has come for UNCC to realize its
students are not children; the feelings of a growing
group, soon to be a majority, is that a
confrontation of goals and values is beginning. If
we remain the way we are now, education at
UNCC will continue its fated development into a
traditional, ivy-covered group of buildings with
rules and dogmas unrelated in space and time to
now. The difference is in the desire, the belief that
the worst thing that could happen to this
potentially beautiful and creative environment is
let the same ideas that built all Universities of the
past set in here.
(continued on opposite page)