The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, February 25, 1974, Page PAGE 4, Image 4
TICKE
.. . 1
BY IIAlIt1' F. SMITIISON
AND JAMES S. POPE
BEING AMONG the many
students denied the right to attend
the Notre Dame game, we decided
to personally investigate the cir
cumstances which brought about
this injustice in an effort to do all in
our power to prevent its
recurrence.
Our first stop was the "Roun
dhouse" or Athletic Office, where
we were given rough estimates as
to how many tickets were
distributed to whom. We asked for
and received the "Official
Blueprint" or Coliseum chart with
color schemes showing actual
distribution. We then proceeded to
add up all the small numbers at the
end of each row in an attempt to
arrive at the exact distribution
figures. There are a few
discrepancies (our total number of
seats is 35 short of the official total
of 12,397) due to inability to read
some of the microscopic numbers
on the chart.
BELOW IS our final tabulation of
ticket distribution reflected on the
chart, which the ticket manager
assured us was a highly accurate
representation of ticket allotments
at each game: Student Tickets:
Pep Band - 58; Student Govern
ment - 132; Roost Athletes - 247;
General Student Body - 5,254; for a
total of 5,691 student tickets. Non
Student Tickets: Visting Team -
25; Football Coaches and Recruits
60; Athletic Staff and families
104; State Legislature - 275;
Faculty, Administrative Staff and
. ................ ................
Don't i
or the
Vote fc
Hear
Feb.2
FS
[USC Must Stop C
Employees, and Basketball
Player's Guests (4 to each varsity
member) 1,506; Gamecock Club
members - 4,701; for a total of 6,671
non-sttudent tickets. This means
that 54 per cent of the seats are
promised to non-students before
any students are assessed their
mandatory fees at registration.
Next a visit to the office of the
Associate Vice-President of
Finance, Benard Daetwyler. He
told us 13,235 full-time students
paid the mandatory activities fee
(part of which subsidizes the
athletic program), and 543 of the
school's part-time students elected
to pay the fee for a total number of
13,778 whose fees contributed to the
athletic program of the University
this semester.
Daetwyler expressed his firm
conviction that the athletic
program should be for the
students, but contended only
through season ticket sales can a
successful program be financed.
IF SUCH is the case, then the
University has but one alternative:
It must stop coercing student
payments for rights which it has
already decided to sell.
The University has indicated in
its student handbook that purchase
of the activities fee entitles a
student to tickets: "Each student
may pick up two tickets by
presenting his ID card and fee
receipt plus one other ID card and
fee receipt." Carolina Com
munity, page 28, pt. 6. The ac
tivities card itself says "Keep this
card for ...athletic events, " and is
surrounded by 21 spaces which
rote for the cai
candidate with
r the candidal
all the Pre
8 at theG,
It's your choi4
oercing Student
PA'
Monday,
represent different athletic even
according to officials in t
treasurer's office. The Nol
Dame game was represented
space number five. Purchase
the card in January should
purchase of the right to have th<
'spaces punched in Januar
February and March.
BUT, TIE UNIVERSI'
replies, any idiot can see that the
is no way 13,000 students can
into only 12,000 seats. Our fii
answer to that is it's not c
problem - it's yours. It's you w
are in the business of selling t
same seat to two people.
It's you who are in the busine
of taxing students for benefits y
cannot deliver to them. It is y
who have represented to t
students in your own handbc
addressing university regulatic
to us that all with fee cards wot
be able to attend the games.
The second answer to t
theoretically-all-of-the-studei
can-never-go-to-the-same-game
argument is that practical
speaking, such a stituation woi
never occur if there is strict (
forcement against assigning II
to non-students by facial id(
ididate who
the best posi
~e who can ai
sidential
ilden Spi
:e. Make it an int4
Payments On Alret
is
GE 4
Feb. 25, 1974
a
ts, tification at the gate and sub- t
he sequent refusal to cash in non- f
,re students' holding of student tickets tj
by at the box office. The most liberal t
of estimates of those turned away a
be from the Notre Dame game, the s
se biggest athletic event here in i
y years, are 1500-2000 students. f
No, it is not because of the r
rY hypothetical possibility that all of i
re us who have paid fees may want to (
fit go the same game that we are c
st rooked out of our seats. It is
ur because before we are even t
ho assessed fees for those seats, 54 per 11
he cent of them have already gone to f
state legislators (who pay nothing s
ss for theirs), alumni, faculty, r
ou President Jones (who gets 56 for s
ou his own personal use) and other r
he assorted VIP's and their wives, L
ok kids, aunts and uncles, none of c
ns whom had to subsidize the r
ild University's athletic program, and t
yet most of whom are arbitrarily c
he given VIP status at the expense of I
it- the average student who:se con- r
tribution was involuntary. i
ly IT IS ONLY because the -
ild University forces 13,235 students
n- to pay for 5,691 seats that students
)'s waited for hours before being shut t
m- out of the Notre Dame game, and it
hakes your han<
ters
iswer your questi
candidates
ir 8:00 p.m.
alligent choice.
dy-Sold Tickets
for precisely the same reason
iat a similar rip-off is likely for
ie Pitt game on Wednesday.
Until the University allows
oluntary student payment of the
ortion of the semester fee which
oes to athletics, or allows a
roportional rebate to those who
ttempted to get tickets for the
alue of the game ripped off, it is
bligated to furnish seats to all
hose who have paid the activity
ee and are willing to go through
he present ordeal of 54 per cent
icket distribution. The only other
lternative is to have the non
tudents whose support of athletics
; purely voluntary take their seats
irst; then, each student, whose
aandatory fee has conferred upon
im the same rights, may enter the
oliseum to sit on the VIP of his
hoice.
THERE HAS been recent con
roversy over whether a university
as the right to assess collective
ees for activities which individual
tudents know in advance they do
ot wish to support. But even if
uch authority is presumed, it can
Lever be contended that a
niversity not only has a right to
ollect such fees but an additional
ight to deny the students the very
enefits for which the fees were
ollected! An institution has no
egitimate authority to tax with its
ight hand for the benefit of goods
t has sold to others with its left
and. It has no such right - only the
ower.
Students have power, too. It's
ime we asserted it.
. ....... viv.
I the most
tons: a
Thurs.i