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.

"ONCE A CAMPUS RE Tickets... To the Editor: Conceding that the "ticket" articles concerning mandatory fees raise several valid points, perhaps the other side also has a few valid points. The Gamecocks and the Coliseum are not the ex clusive domain of the students they also belong to the people of South Carolina. Why? Because the people put the University on the map by paying taxes (mandatory, r by the way). Contrary to the ar ticle, the VIP's have indeed sub- i sidized the athletic program. If it d weren't for the so-called "VIP's", a the Cocks might still be playing in a 3,000 seat crackerbox. The r General Assembly provides for the a maintenance of the University t (Article X, S9, S. C. Constitution). r Basketball tickets are a small t token to pay if it will encourage tl generous consideration of the University's financial needs. Gamecock club members have always been instrumental in funding the entire athletic program. Faculty and Staff? At their low salaries, how the hell else are you going to get them to stay here? As for President Jones, owner of the most thankless job on campus, I doubt if he holds a I family reunion before every home f game to dole out his 56 tickets. No, as chief hustler for University < endowments, he probably horse- a trades those tickets for fat con- s tributions in the name of goodwill. r One suggested solution is to I check faces against ID's at the a gate. The writers undoubtedly were not among the several hundred students who stood out side, tickets in hand, waiting to get their faces checked, while the Notre Dame game got underway inside - then climbing over people to find their own seats. To refuse to validate a student ticket would not only be wasting revenues, but suppose Ma and Pa or "Sweet: Young Thing" is up for the weekend and would like to see a game? Would refusing them vindicate student rights?! Besides, if possession of a ticket is a vested right for every student who pays the fee, then it is ownership. Therefore, why can't a student freely give away what he owns? The Pitt game pick-up ap parently came off with a minimum of confusion. Houston will probably be the same. Thus for $12.50, a sudent can see 15 of 16 E4 FOtW toLUTlOWARY, ALWAYS A CAMPUS F I.I."....-OMMO 3ur Mail ball games without much hassle. These are pretty good odds. I find more fault with the handling of the particular situation than I do with he system itself. Prior notice of he number and breakdown of ivailable tickets would have saved i lot of people a lot of time and would've cut down on the panic 'umors. If a couple of the campus cops iad been standing outside instead f inside, there would've been less ine breaking; and if the SGA nembers had gotten outside early Lnd issued vouchers, the atecomers would've had no lecision to make (cutting class for chance at a ticket). Solutions? Suppose fees were nade voluntary at twice the cost nd 7000 students opted to pay hem? Hopefully, they would be ore broadminded than some of he "one-game wonders", should aey be then turned away from a remier game. . W. Swan ...More Tickets To the Editor: The University is constantly eing criticized for its lack of airness to the students, but in the ontroversial case of athletic ticket listribution, picking up tickets ccording to the last digit of one's ocial security number in a otating fashion for every game is robably the most outstanding ttempt being made at fairness. 'he real inequity exists in the ipportionment of tickets. In a ~oliseum only capable of seating half of the registered Carolina ~tudents, I feel it is only fair that wo-thirds of the seats be offered to he students. This would give us 1,000 seats, a much fairer number han the 5,800 normally available, figure less than half of capacity. f we had been allowed the 8,000 for he Notre Dame game, a lot of iarsh words would have been saved. As for the other 4,000-5,000 seats, let the faculty and staff continue to have their 1,000 tickets, and let 400 continue to be given away, and let the opponents and recruits and team and coaches receive their 100-150 along with the 150 that go to the athletic depart mnent. This comprises about 1,700 r so still leaving about 3,000 seats for season ticket purchasers. This is where a change should come. Full scholarship donors should be OFFICE OF THE DEAN EVOLU 1ONARYP" Immmmmmummm.g given first preference on these 3,000 seats and then a list of all others desiring seats should be established on a first come, first servedbasis. When these 3,000 seats are gone, those remaining on the list will have the option to purchase the seats remaining in the student allotment after student pick-up has ended. This plan guarantees 25 per cent of the seats to those outside the University sphere and possibly as many as 35-40 per cent for most games. Then in the instance of big games such as Notre Dame and Marquette the students would have first option on 66 per cent of the seats, allowing probably anyone desiring a ticket to have one. Along with this, possibly a change is in order for activity fees. Students who do not feel they will be attending any athletic events should not have to pay the $12 p'ortion of the activity fee designated for athletics. But as Faircloth said in the February 18th Gamecock, a rebate for the Notre Dame game would only amount to about 40 cents, hardly worth a gripe. If this became the case though, it would be virtually im possible to change one's mind and obtain a ticket in the event of a big game, and should be. Enough of the griping over the Notre Dame game. I was there Saturday and I went down at 11 o'clock the night before pickup to assure myself of a ticket. I didn't mind sleeping there the whole night and don't let anyone tell you they did! It was a party, not a hassle! Everyone enjoyed the all nighter and I seriously doubt if too many minded missing any classes Wednesday. Imagine if lines had had to form on a first come-first serve basis to get an unspecified seat on Saturday. That would have been inconceiveably worse. So stop being so lazy and selfish and expecting everything on a silver platter, especially athletic tickets. Look for something a little more promising to gripe about! Debbie Burks Why No Water? To the Editor: Energy Crisis or not, why can't we have water in the reflection pool in front of the Undergrad Library? It's getting hot! Sencer Starr Too Much To Ask? Apparently the state House of Represen tatives is going to reinstate the death penalty for all murderers. The possibility of passage of the bill is alarming for two reasons. The first is the theory of capital punishment itself. The second is why it will probably be passed. Capital punishment has never been proved to be a deterrent to crime, but this is the primary reason people say the penalty is necessary. Most murders are not premeditated and are committed in a fit of blinding rage or temporary insanity. No purpose is served executing murderers of this kind, since it would not deter the future passion murderer and would not "teach a lesson" to the murderer. It is difficult for a dead man to benefit from his lesson. Non-passion murders and murders in cold blood are fairly rare, but the few there are are committed by people who are obviously deranged. The penalty of the deed does not speak to killers of this sort since they are not reasonable persons in the first place. The argument that taxpayers should not have to pay to support these killers in prison is unimportant when compared to the com monly-held belief that murder is wrong wrong for the murderer and ~ wrong for the state. Most people have heard all of these reasons against capital punishment, yet many still demand it. They demand it because they believe that the death penalty is just. Although most proclaim to be adherents to the Christian "turn the other cheek" philosophy on Sunday, it's "eye for an eye" the rest of the week. Still, one can excuse the rampant ambiguity and emotionalism of "the great unwashed masses", but surely one can hope the state legislators, the lawmakers of the state, have at least some semblance of reason. Un fortunately, reason has not been consulted in the death penalty issue. Riding on the wave of emotionalism con cerning of the two slain law enforcement of ficials, representative after representative has risen to present petitions of thousands demanding the death penalty and have pleaded with flaming oratory to murder all murderers. Perhaps it is too much to ask for people to understand that wrong is always wrong, murder by any other name is still murder. Apparently it is too great a challenge to ask legislators to be reasonable and just. I-ditor Alanaging~ l-:ditor .\d Alanager Hill Graniit .\rt Frank The Gamecock Although The Gamecock is a publication of the students of' the University of South Carolina, it is not an official publication of the university. The opin ions ex pressed herein do not necessarily rep resent those of the university, the student body or all the staff members of The Gamecock. I:ditoial l'ag~ l.:dito......it ian ('E3oper N e w s :dlit o r......... ........ T o m m ' ik e - l'ports\eu ld .:dit..........~.. *i Her a ( 'ircltion \lanager........ areith .em I- n i ria i m e n i d it r .... .... E I Il r