Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Former p To Bill 01 BY THOM SALANE STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT 1968-69 EXECUTIVE FIRST SECY. 1967-68 A LETTER TO THE EDITOR Unfortunately, as is the case with the vast majority of stu dents at Carolina, I have been satisfied with only a passive interest in the events of Student Government during the past few years. Despite this lethargy, I have broken the tradition by writing to you in response to an article which appeared in the January 25th issue of the Gamecock. The article "USC Student Without Bill of Rights Protection" (written by a staff writer and evidently based on an interview with a fellow law student and Chief Justice of the Student Government Court, Doug Dent) was the prime cause for my departure from tradition. I feel that the article was a "... the best way to ac( university the size and is through a joint effort mistatement of the facts sur rounding the need for a Student Bill of Rights. At the outset, however, a disclaimer: My intent is not to criticize, blame, or cast stones at those who apparently made an honest mis take. I wish only to set the facts straight and to make what I feel are a few pertinent observa tions based on hindsight and my past experiences in Student Government. the main thrust of the article is that the absence of a Student Bill of Rights in the USC con stitution is a significant prob lem facing the new Supreme Court of the Student Govern ment. Two arguments are asserted: 1) that the court needs a guideline to follow in making decisions are based on estab lished university law-i.e. a stu dent bill of rights; and 2) that the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities which appears in the Carolina Com munity is not an adequate guideline because "all the rules were written entirely by the administration with some stu dent approval" and con sequently tend to confuse many student senators. The first of the two arguments is viable only if one accepts the second premise. This premise is not true. The Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities was written entirely by students in that it was devised, discussed, and transcribed by members of Student Government. It repres ents the combined work pro duct of at least three administ rations of Student Goverment Officers. The nucleus of the idea originated with Student Body President Bill Youngblood in 1966-67, was car ried on and pursued with vigor by Student Body President Sam Drew in 1967-68, and was ultimately ratified during my term of office in 1968-69. The resident r Rights a statement which appears in the Carolina Community was passed by the Student Senate in December of 1968 and passed by the Faculty Senate in the same year. In the early part of 1969, the statement was adopted as official university policy by the Board of Trustees. The Statement itself rep resented adaptations of state ments prepared by other uni versities in similar situations, guidelines for student bills of rights prepared by the two major national associations for student governments, the sug gested guidelines prepared by the Association of American College and University Profes sors, and guidelines suggested by the ACLU. Despite the well known ties these organizations have with college adminis trators (tongue in cheek at this point), the Statement was requested by over fifty colleges and universities during the remainder of my term to serve as a guide in preparation of their bills of rights. In response :omplish anything at a complexity of Carolina to achieve joint goals." -Thom Salane to the charge that it was written entirely by the administration, this may be the result of the fact that joint faculty, student, and administration representatives carried on a two year dialogue in committees to discuss prog ressive drafts. At this point I can only say that since all three groups adopted the policy, this joint participation was only reasonable; in the last analysis, however it was the draft written by the Student Government that was adopted. At any rate it is my opinion, even if not shared by others, that the best way to accomplish anything at a uni versity the size and complexity of Carolina is through a joint effort to achieve joint goals. The fact that the statement is not incorporated into the body of the Student Government Constitution does not preclude its use as a guideline for the Stu dent courts. It, if nothing else, is a valid act of the Student Sen ate, implemented by the Faculty Senate as well as the Board of Trustees. Surely a court can find some solice in a validly enacted statute. As for its method of publication, print ing in the Carolina Community to be the most advantageous method of publication. How many students have read the SGA Constitution and how many students have read the Carolina Community? Publica tion in the Carolina Community represents announced policy that the faculty and the Board of Trustees publically adhere to. How much weight would be attached to the same statement if it appeared only in the Stu dent Body Constitution? At any rate, the sole reason for initially publishing it in the Carolina Community was a result of pre gmatica: it was the best means 'esponds rticle of letting students know that they had rights recognized by all three areas of the Carolina Community-the student gov ernment, the faculty, and the administration. As for the observations I indicated at the outset of this letter that I wished to make: (1) the biggest problem facing stu dent government is its lack of continuity; and (2) a major obstacle to overcome in estab lishing continuity is the elimi nation of an often unfounded fear of 'administration'. From year to year, student governments come and go. Each administration begins with an almost evangelical ferver to accomplish many things. By the end of the first semester the cold realization sets in that Spring will bring graduation and a new govern ment while the same administ ration will remain. The easy way out seems to be to blame it on the monolithic "adminis tration". This is not to say that the administration does not oppose some student proposals or even most. The point I am trying to make is simply that the two interest groups-students and adminstrators-can never be expected to agree on every thing. No two groups will. The true interests of the two groups, however, often are the same. Although differtnces might appear in methods to promote change, it should not be control ling that the student method or the administration method should always prevail. In those areas where interests are the same(and there are many results can be achieved by open, honest, and sincere coopera tion. In addition too much emphasis is placed on the con frontation between these two groups to the exclusion of a third important and influential group--the faculty. Too often faculty-student committees are not appointed, or if appointed do not meet or function. Students may often find a staunch ally in this group-at least one wil ling to discuss matters of con cern such as curriculum changes, special projects, etc. Discussions can lead to viable plans of action and ultimate fruition. Remember, in the spr ing the faculty will remain as well. This approach has been the secret of success of what in my opinion has been the most successful and effective stu dent government organization s-the Associated Women Stu dents. To those of you who bothered, please forgive the rantings of a former insider who now looks on from outside the workings of student government. To those in student government, as long as you build a wall between yourselves and the other inter est groups on campus-i.e. the faculty and adminis tration--there will be those who follow you who will either add to that wall or run up against Re ace -relief with skepticism War cannot be called meaningless. It means impending death to those who must fight and honor to many who don't. War can be spelled POW or MIA. It can mean never seeing your son, husband or father again or seeing only a fragment of what he was. Peace means reunion with the men who wrote the letters, with the POWs and the MIAs, and with those fragmented loved ones. It's an end to the uncertainty caused by war and a halt to the fighting and bombing that took so many lives on both sides of the firing line. The peace settlement signed Saturday night in Paris is to end the fighting in Vietnam, or at least American involve ment in the fighting. It officially ends a 12-year war, the longest foreign war in American history-and an undec lared war. Some of us are rejoiceful, while some await their soldiers' return. Most people are relieved blat others are skeptical. The relief is justified because this time, unlike in November when Henry Kissinger's German accent gave us the only word we had on peace, the settlement is official and not just "at hand." But the skepticism is necessary because of the, potential for renewed fighting or violations of the settlement. In fact, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu has predicted a Communist violation of the cease-fire. And reports have spread that the United States will inter vene again if the Communists "blatantly" violate the cease fire. This means the entire cycle could begin again at any time and in a few months, weeks or even days our men could be back in Vietnam. This means a whole new war could be right around the corner and up the street if the Communists make what our decision-makers say is a wrong move, a blatant violation. And since American involve ment in Vietnam was initiated with a promise of protection, and since there seems to be no safeguard against this second promise resulting in the same type of involvement, the threat of war continues. So sisters, cherish your brothers; fathers cherish your sons and women love your husbands because, though the pact has been signed and we can be relieved for a while, a little skepticism won't hurteu.