CM
O'
eo
CM
k.
a>
E
«>
E
3
Patterson wins easy re-election
Eaker next editor
by Sharon deck
In a landslide victory, Stan
Patterson has won reelection as
Student Government President. He
polled 600 votes to Marcia Finfrock's
116 and Spencer Singleton’s 61. Most
observers had predicted a closer race.
Michael Dobson has defeated Dean
Duncan for editor of Sanskrit by only
seven votes, 352 to 345. Duncan has
said that he may contest the election
on the grounds that Dobson
campaigned illegally by distributing the
latest issue of Sanskrit while
campaigning and by using Sanskrit
covers for campaign posters.
In the other major race. Jay Eaker
has been elected editor of the Journal
over Charlie Peek. Eaker received 402
votes to Peek's 302.
The anticipated protest vote did not
materialize. Many observers had
believed that voters were voting against
candidates running unopposed "for the
hell of it." Although some protest
votes can be detected, they did not
exceed 20% of the vote for any
unopposed candidate. This was the
first election in which votes for or
against unopposed candidates were
Journal photo/alsop
allowed.
The election for Student Superior
Court Judges was postponed until
March 27 and 28. Because only five
candidates were running for five Mats
on the court, the Elections Committee
ruled that they were in fact running
unopposed. Under the new election
procedures, nominations must be
re-opened to give others a chance to
run for the Court.
Only one more set of elections is
planned. On March 27 and 28,
elections will be held for Student
Legislature (excluding Freshman
President, Commuter Representatives,
and Dorm Representatives), for
nominations is March 15 and 16.
The results:
SGA President
Stan Patterson 600
Spencer Singleton 61
Marcia F infrock 116
Journal Editor
Jay Eaker
Charlie Peek
Journal Business Manager
Richard Shotkus
For
Against
Sanskrit Editor
Michael Dobson
Dean Duncan
402
302
409
135
352
345
Sanskrit Business Manager
Patricia Stuut
For
Against
Rogues 'n' Rascals Editor
Tom Alsop
For
Against
SBA General Manager
Tom Swicegood
For
Against
SBA Assistant General Manager
Steve Sox
For
Against
SBA Business Manager
Linda Williams
For
Against
SBA Chief Engineer
Keith Englehardt
For
Against
SBA Program Director
Randy Jones
Janet L. Cline
^BA News Director
Frank Harrison
Randy Kendrick
414
140
487
157
470
121
455
118
467
116
462
111
335
275
192
407
Seeking equal voice
analysis bysharondeck
Leaving students and some professors disappointed, the College of Social and
Behavioral Sciences has postponed discussion of a proposal for equal student
representation on the college faculty.
Instead, the faculty spent 45 minutes discussing retirement plans and another
15 minutes in parliamentary finagling to prevent a meaningful discussion of the
^ Whether any decision can be made before the end of the semester is doubtful.
The faculty will not meet again until April 10, and its last meeting of the y^r is
on May 1. When questioned about the possibility of a special session. Dean
Norman W. Schul replied that it was irnpossible because "the faculty just won t
get together at any but the regular time." . . j
Students fear that the issue will be allowed to die, and will not be raised again
next year. Three of the four students who worked on the proposal will be
graduating in May. And since student participation at the departmental level has
been noticeably lacking, there may be no impetus toward further discussion next
In brief the proposal recommends equal voting representation for students on
all college’committees, with the student representatives to be elected by the
majors in each of the college’s four departments (psychology, sociology, political
''Th^lack ^°facuity concern about student representation at the departmental
level has led students to believe that the faculty will also fight student
participation at the college level. Only six students are formally involved in
departmental decisions. Political science has one studdnt; sociology, four,
oeoQraphy, one; and psychology, none.
^ From the sparse discussion in last Monday s meeting, it appears that the
facultv will be divided into three camps. Some support equal representation;
others'^ support some representation, but not equal; others oppose any student
rep^esenta^oi^^or opposition will probably be that students do not have enou^
of a steke in the University community to warrant their
important long-range decisions. But, as student Bill Sigmon points out. Students
already have nearly-equal representation on the University Senate, which
considers issues of the highest importance. .  ,h. nmnosal feels
The committee, which is not unanimous in its support of the proposal, teeis
that their recommendation is merely a unification and extension of existing
deoartmental policies for student representation. . ,
The committee report lists these other factors as the rationale for student
representation:
Fund at $211
Student representation should increase the diversity and volurne of imput into
decision-making. Presumably, better decisions can be made with more
information. ... .uo,..
Students should have a right to an effective voice in decision that affect them.
Only by giving student representatives some real power, in ternris ot voting
rights, is there any reason for them to commit themselves to participation.
If 'students receive representation now, the faculty can prevent future
confrontations over failure to include students in decision-making. ,
Participation in departmental and college affairs can be of educational value to
the|Stu^^fense student representation, the committee pointed out that
although students may not be here as long as some faculty ^
stake in the quality of instruction and areas of study offered here. The quality of
a UNCC education will affect a student’s employment opportunities atter
graduation; it will also affect any faculty member who wishes to teach elsewhere.
"It is reasonable to assume that both faculty and students have an equal stake
In the present and future development of the University. Ihe Colley, and their
respective academic departments. Therefore, it Is also reasonable for both faculty
and students to share equally in the responsibility for the development, the
report states. . . , . ^
Some professors will probably raise the objection that students are B'ther not
intelligent enough or not informed enough to participate in high-level
decision-making. The students will probably reply that they have not been given a
real chance to show their capabilities, as evidenced by the fact that they have
been effectively shut out of departmental decision-making.
Sociology professors, whose department has the best student representation in
the College, were most vocal in their support of the proposal at the meeting. The
comments of most of the other professors were directed at the parliamentary
procedures for discussing the reporL
Whether the parliamentary questions were an effort to stall discussion is
unclear, although some students are convinced that this was the case. If the
faculty gets tangled up in procedural debates at the next meeting, the students
fear, no meaningful discussion will take place and, possibly, no decision will be
made this semester.
If the proposal is accepted, the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences will
have the best system of student representation at the University. The College of
Engineering is also establishing a process for student representation, but whether
students will have an equal voice and whether they will be allowed to vote has not
yet been decided.
The Legal Defense Fund for Dr.
Leonard Jordan collected $211 in its
first week of operation. With matching
funds contributed by the Student
Government Association, the total is
$422, still short of the $15(X) that
organizers had set for their goal.
Although Dr. Jordan is not actively
involved in gathering funds, he has
agreed to let others solicit money.
According to Sharon Wilson, wife of
sociology professor Bill Wilson, Dr.
Jordan has contacted attorney George
Daly of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) to handle his case. The
$1500 is the amount estimated to be
necessary to take the case to the court
of Appeals.
Defense fund organizers will be
trying new tactics this week in an
effort to gain more money for the
fund. They hope to hold a benefit
concert in the dorm and hold a bake
sale on-campus. Efforts are also being
made to contact one professor in each
department to help collect
contributions from faculty members.
Top ten
revisited
In a recent article, we erroneously
listed Chemistry 232 as one of the ten
most expensive courses on-campus.
Although it is true that books for this
course cost $26.20, the books are used
for Chemistry 231 as well, making the
cost only $13.10 per semester.
Moving up to the number ten spot is
Sociology 253, the Evolution of
Sociological Inquiry, with a cost ot
$21.70. Dr. Barbara Goodnight, who
teaches this course, has another course
(Soc 557) in the top ten. That adds up
to three sociology courses in the list, a
record not even challenged by other
departments.
-the editor
Candidate slighted
The Journal omitted Earleen
Mabry’s name from the list of
University Senate Candidates in the
February 23 issue. Miss Mabry’s name
was not on the list of candidates given
to the Journal by Randy Russell,
Elections Committee Chairman.
According to Russell, the omission was
inadvertent. The Journal apologizes to
Miss Mabry and the students for the
error.
-the editor
graphic by susan barry