i
jS
E
>
o>
E
e
>
What’s
A
B.CA.?
Through a well-timed whim of the
powers-that-be, UNCC has been given
the go-ahead to implement one of the
most innovative degree programs in the
southeast, it not the entire country.
The Bachelor of Creative Arts, the
result of several years planning by the
Creative Arts faculty (and students to a
lesser extent), is much more
self-directed and unstructured than the
usual academic fare.
Thus, the student himself is the
single most important determining
factor in his own education. There has
been much rumor circulated about this
program; and, until a few weeks ago,
any real truths coming out of the
muttering confines of Rowe were
coated with a thick, aromatic layer of
artistic bullshit.
To clear this smell, haze, several
students and faculty members were
talked to, and their responses
presented a fair picture of the program,
it's problems and its possibilities.
A student enrolled in the B.C.A.
will be working with problems that he
Identifies within the field of the arts
with whatever interests him. Part of
tbe philosophy behind the B.C.A.
program is that library and audio-visual
resources ought to be as important as
classroom activity, and that relevance
is significant to the point that it will be
useful to the student later in his life,
3ud that creativity is an individual
process.
The most commonly known and
discussed fact about the B.C.A. is that
there will be no classes as such. There
'ivill be seminars held at the discretion
of faculty and/or students held at
times when a group of students can
9ain from group activity as opposed to
individual work. These seminars will
form at the times when there is a need
seen for them; they will terminate
tvhen they cease to be valuable.
Along this same line, there will be
00 grades or credit hours either. The
“■C.A. student will not have general
degree requirements of minimum
April fool's issue questioned
analysis-
-by j. Charles autrey
Human Decency, Motherhood, and other aspects of the Great American Dream
received another setback Friday, April 14, when the PUB Board refused to
chastize the Journal for alleged "flagrant abuses" of free press in several recent
issues of the publication. The Board meeting was convened after a recent WSOC
editorial by Freeman R. Jones and a petitition signed by 27 students in the
Engineering department accusing the Journal of a multitude of sins, came to the
Administration's and theBoard's attention.
The meeting began at 11:30 a.m. with a prepared statment from Vice
Chancellor McEniry's office read by Miss Bonnie Cone, who later left to introduce
someone at a luncheon. Though veiled in layers of bombasm, innuendo, and
patronizing concern,the V-C's message was clear enough. There was much talk of
"abused freedoms" and being "lascivious without redeeming social value."
Freedom of the press the statement seemed to say, is okay as long as the Journal
sees fit not to exercise it. The statement urged the Journal to return to its
vehicular function as a community bulletin board and implied that if it didn't, it
would find itself with no funds.
Afterwards, Sanskrit Editor-in-Doubt Michael Dobson asked Chairman
(Advisor) Perzel why this matter wasn't brought to the Board's attention
previously, as Miss Cone and Dr. Perzel. answered that they had received many
complaints before. Perzel answered that the Board could not act until there was a
written complaint or the Board decided to investigate a situation by itself. The
first written complaint he received was a petition signed by 27 students of Dr.
Davis, a professor in the Engineering department.
At this point, Dobson requested that the Board go into executive session and
dispense with the people of the press, particularly the cameramen who were
milling around, distracting the board members with lights, clicks, and buzzes.
Michael McCulley. former editor of the Journal and invited to speak in his own
behalf, rebuked Dobson, saying that outside agitation caused the inquiry, so the
press should be allowed to remain. After member Dean Duncan reminded the
board that an executive session might be illegal, Dobson sat alone when the board
voted 6-1 against hismotion.
With that resolved. Dr. Perzel threw the floor open to discussion on the
matter at hand - what to do about the irascrble rumblings emanating from the
muddy furtive and perverted confines of the Journal's offices.
It was discovered that the petition-signers may have been coerced by an
indignant Dr. Davis. So, the Board voted 5-3 to desregard the 27-name petition as
not being representative of student opinion. Thus temporarily left without a
reason to be in session, the board decided 8-0 to pursue the matter on its own
initiative as it would look bad to have the matter dismissed on a technicality.
McCulley bagan his testimony by saying that there would be no apologies
made by the Journal to anyone about the content of any edition, including the
April Fool issue. He said that he didn't think that much weight should be given to
Freeman R. Jones editorial as the University population doesn't reflect the
composition of the outlying communities.
Just as students differ from the general populace their creative and
journalistic outlets differ also. McCulley said that he felt that such
experimentation was both good and necessary. The veiled threat of a funding
cut-off in the Vice-Chancellor's statement, according to McCulley, world have to
involve the curtailment of all student activities and activity fees. Any specific
cutoff of funds to the paper by the Board of Trustees for the stated reasons
would amount to censorship and would be patently illegal.
Following McCulley's statement, a discussion ensued concerning a case at N.C.
Central where funds to a student paper were specifically cut off because of the
publication's refusal to accept ads from white businessmen. To Perzel, this ruling
seemedi to prove that a paper could be censored specifically, but McCulley
pointed out that the paper in question had broken the Civil Rights Act, whereas
the Journal had merely exercised its part of the First Amendent, which is not a
crime as yet.
Sanskrit editor Dobson favored the Board taking an idealistic stand, neither
upholding nor chastizing the Journal, but recognizing its right to exist unfettered
and uncensored.
Member Dr. Sinclair, from the Philosophy Dept., wanted to know what the
students themselves thought about the paper's recent policies. It turned out that
WVFN had taken a 24-person telephone poll on the matter and it turned out that
feelings were evenly split about the paper's merits, but practically no one wanted
the publication censored.
It was pointed out that it was practically impossible to get a decent sampling
of student opinion as only 783 out of 4700 students cared enough to vote in the
election of the editor.
In a grim meeting otherwise infested by a bad case of Drooping Eyelids, and
Tight Lips, a few heads turned when Michael Dobson turned against the consensus
by criticizing the Journal for its mediocrity but at the same time saying that bad
taste isn't subject to legislation.
Then, unexpectedly, McCulley, looking as if he was preparing for confession,
entertained the board with a dissertation on what THE BULLSHIT APRIL FOOL
EDITION WAS ALL ABOUT.
The crowd hushed expectantly as if wainting for manna, He explained that the
April Fool's edition was only a concentrated version of the bullshit he had baen
printing all year, and that it followed in the sacred tradition of Harvard Lampoon
by providing a much needed comic relief before exam and term-paper time. He
said that he thought that the April Fool's and all other editions of the Journal
(continued on page two)
Dohson petition
denied
by J. Charles autrey
credit hours to receive his degree.
The B.C.A. student will be
evaluated on three levels: by his
faculty advisor, his peer-group of
co-workers, and by himself. The
advisor assigned to the student would
be responsible for keeping in touch
with the student and his work, keeping
one running file of what the student
has been doing, gathering information
from student and faculty sources both
within the field and out of it.
Evaluation takes place continually,
and knows no specific divisions of
time, such as semesters. The student is
evaluated as he progresses through
what he is doing day to day, week to
week.
To qualify for the B.C. A. program,
then, a student need only be eligible
for admision to the University. To
receive a degree, however, the B.C.A.
candidate must be recommended by
his major professor and two others out
of the candidate's field, have his
portfolio evaluated, and be
recommended by an elected review
board of fellow students in the field.
The degree can be thought of as
more professional than academic -
instead of having a certain number of
classes, one will have done a great deal
of work in one's field as well as
whatever work related to the field one
has worked in.
To enter the B.C.A. program - one
simply changes to "B.C.A." under
"degree" on a form for major change,
and to a major within the Creative Arts
on the same form. There is another
form to be got from ones new B.C.A.
advisor.
To do work in the arts without
entering the B.C.A., at registration
there will be computer cards for
introduction to Creative Arts Seminar
(designation CA 210) which will have
about fifteen sections. Each section
will be handled by one faculty
member, and will be treated differently
on that basis. Sections might meet at
the time designated only once at the
beginning of the semester, and from
there work on an individual basis or at
different times, depending on the
schedules and needs of the students.
The B.C.A. program posses some
interesting problems. What happens if a
B C A. student transfers to a
conventional degree program at UNCC
or another school? Though it hasn t
been tested, sources say that the
Creative Arts people have ^ised a
system by which B.C.A. credits can be
translated to conventional hours and
Q p Students desiring more
information should contact Creative
Arts faculty and students.
Topless
club
An interesting item appeared in the
minutes of last week's Student
Legislature meeting. A motion was
made by legislator Boone Wayson and
seconded by Charlie Kelly which
would provide our harried legislators
with a well deserved break from the
strenuous burdens of the offices.
The motion read, "I move that
$160.(X) be allocated to the Topless
Club to take a trip through Charlotte's
leading night clubs. And if there is an
On the night of Monday, April* 17
the Student Superior Court met to
hear the controversal case concerning
the recent Sanskrit election. The
election committee had previously
ruled that Michael Dobson used unfair
and illegal campaign measures in the
election campaign of March 8 and 9.
They ruled that this could have given
Dobson and unfair advantage that thus
netted the seven votes that won him
the election.
The court met to rule on Dobson's
petition. Dobson, in his petition, asked
that the Election Board's decision be
reversed and that he be rewarded
compensation for his time and
"worry."
In part Dobson's petition stated,
"Michael E. Dobson is confirmed as
'Editor of Sanskrit for the school year
of 1972-1973, and all rights, privileges,
duties, and obligations of that office
are confirmed in his name."
Dobson faced Duncan in the court
Monday night to argue for his petition.
Dean Duncan was the defeated
candidate in the Sanskrit election and
had subsquently failed a complaint
against Dobson's practices in the
election.
Chief Justice Vickie Hinson
presided over the proceedings. The
proceedings themselves were somewhat
comical as it became more of a debate
between Dobson and the defense than
a formal court. A long time was taken
for heavy laden discussion on whether
the complaint had been filed formally
or not.
The defense argued that Dobson
had placed a sign illegally on the
window of the dorm cafeteria in his
campaign. This is forbidden by the
publicity laws. Dobson countered that
"by bill holder
his staff had placed the sign without
his knowledged or consent. And that
further, the defense continued, Dobson
had used recent issues of Sanskrit for
the making of signs. Dobson again
contended that his staff had used these
materials without his awareness.
Several of his staff members confirmed
this.
The court was recessed while the
judges deliberated for almost ninety
minutes. The ruling of the court was
that;
1) "The campaign staff is acting for
and is a representative of that
candidate. Therefore all candidates are
responsible for their campaign staff
concerning election procedures."
2) "The Election Board has original
jurisdiction in all matters concerning
election of students, this includes
publicity."
3) "The Student Superior Court is
in agreement with the ruling of the
Election Board that Mr. Duncan may
have been placed at an unfair
advantage by illegal publicity ...Thus
the Election Board is upheld in its
ruling and the election will proceed as
called for by the Elections
Committee."
Another election wilt thus be held
between Dobson and Duncan, April
19th and 20th. Dobson was also
charged with five dollars court cost.
Dobson made a statement
afterwards. "I was somewhat expecting
the decision of the court, but I had not
lost all my faith in human nature aixl
felt that they could rule otherwise. I
will appeal the case to the University
Court and seek an injunction to halt
the upcoming election until that body
makes its decision."
overwhelming demand, the girl's dorm
will be renamed to Billy the Kid#'2."
The motion passed 8 to 1.
A second motion, introduced by
Fish Fostrer and seconded by Ron
Young read, "I move that a copy of
the Topless Bill be sent to the student
media and the Charlotte Observer and
News," This motion was defeated 12
to 1.
The Journal invites the members of
the Topless Club to submit an account
of their experiences for publication in
the next issue - watch this space for
developments. There is strong reason
to suspect that they were only kidding.