University of South Carolina Libraries
Editorials. . Use or The USC Board of Trustees, in its meeting in January, made a decision that can have profound effects on the quality of the University's law program either improving it or harming it. The Trustees gave President William Pat terson the right to appoint a committee to select 7 per cent of the entering class in the law school. Immediately many people looked at the decision as a way for state politicians to. have their relatives and friends ac cepted into the. law school, even if they do not meet the minimum requirements of the school. In fact, Board member Michael J. Mungo raised the issue before the Board passed on the motion. "Would the right for the President to appoint 7 per cent of the class be used as a political tool?" Mungo asked Patterson before the Board voted. Patterson, predictably, assured Mungo and the rest of the Board that it would not be used for political purposes. The measure was then passed with little opposition. But now the President and the committee he ap points to study applicants they think deserve to be admitted to the law school must be watched closely so they do not abuse their right to admit students into the school. If they are not watched closely the process could easily turn into the political tool that many people fear. When examined from a different perspective some good points in the ap pointment process are evident. For instance, students who have law school potential but whose grade point-ratio as an un dergr'aduate is bar-ely below the standards of the law school will have a chance of being admitted. The value of a GPR in evaluating students for graduate work is often questioned, and this will allow the committee to appoint students who show they have law school abuse. potential, even though their GPR is considered to be too low. Additionally, often students whose score on law boards are. low are. automatically eliminated from even being considered for entrance to the law school. Often, these students also have the potential for high achievement in law school, but never get the chance because their. law board scores are below the minimum requirements established by the school. If used in a correct manner, and if the com mittee acts judiciously, the power of a presidential committee to appoint 7 per cent of the entering law school class can be an asset to the program. In an interview with The Gamecock Mungo said it will be up to the law school, the student body. and the student newspaper to see that neither Patterson nor his committee abuse their newly-gained power. With a committee -that has the potential for wide abuse, it should be in the interest of the law school, especially the students and faculty, to make sure that only people with high potential be admitted by presidential appointment. To assure this it would be a good idea if the dean of the law school, several faculty members and law student representatives be allowed to sit in on all appointment committee meetings and screenings of applications. This will assure that all the applicants will be inspected by all portions of the law school, with approval coming from each segment. With the assurance that each ' application will be screened tightly the committee could eliminate any chance of the political abuse of the appointment process. In this way it will also assure that the ap pointment process will be an asset to the school, rather than the disgrace that political abuse would bring to it. doAeadcl r~ APoir* te SeAtas Son Dean, Ziegler freedom of sy By. Not too many years ago students in colleges and universities went through a period in which they demonstrated for and demanded the right to free speech. Their actions for the First Amend ment right were in the most part noble and did much to advance their cause. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that the question of free speech is resurfacing in the news so soon with colleges and universities again serving as the battleground. Watergate--which touched almost every moral fabric in the nation--can indirectly be blamed for the free speech question reappearing so quickly. This time it is several of the Watergate "criminals" who are having their right to free .speech abridged by the academics. John Dean, the former White House counsel and later the White House informer, and Ron Zeigler, former President Nixon's much maligned press secretary, both are on the speaking circuit and are encountering problems everywhere they travel. Ziegler had an invitation to speak at Boston University rescinded a few weeks ago after the dean of BU's School of Public Communication protested the school paying $2,500 to someone who made a habit out of misleading and misinforming the press while the Watergate scandal was unfolding. Meanwhile, Dean also has drawn loud criticism for trying, and obviously succeeding, in making a legal profit from crime. Dean started his tour, which is expected to last six weeks, at the University of Virginia Feb. 2, where he was grilled with 30 minutes of questions about his lectute fee of $4,000. About 20 pickets also demonstrated outside the auditorium where Dean spoke. At Virginia and at Boston University the protesters claimed that their protests are not over whether the Watergate figures should be allowed to speak, but over the validity of the two figures capitalizing on being criminals. If they would not get paid it would be alright .. mut,whe and. No 01Wiwll 4ev allowed~hw tosek,tepotsoshad es G4getwnunier ity, editoiaiewe I001 and oeech Fimn He rs h money is concerned the two should not be allowed to speak, the protestors said, because they would be capitalizing on their crimes. As the Georgetown Voice, the student paper at G6orgetown ,university, editorialized when students at that university protested Dean's scheduled appearance there, "They so quickly forget that they have paid other 'criminals' such as Tom Hayden and Dick Gregory, whiue delighting at the thought of their speaking here." The important aspect of the protests against the right of Dean, Ziegler and other Watergate "criminals" to speak, and get paid for it, at universities is that the protests are in fact an. attempt to censure what is being said on college campuses. And it is somewhat disheartening that the students are the ones who are threatening the right to free speach in this case. This entire situation of censuring speakers is a very dangerous one to the academic world. It is vital to the existence of academic freedom that anyone and everyone be allowed to present their side of an issue, no matter how controversial it is or on what side of the issue the speaker stands. .If the current situation is taken a step further, it seems only a matter of time until students will demand that professors with unpopular beliefs be fired from their jqghs. This would be disastrous because any university or educational institution must have a number of differing views from which to argue and from which to determine the most valid point. Certainly students do not want their professors to be censured by the university's ad ministration. Until recently teachers with even the remotest ties with communistic groups were watched closely and in some cases fired from their jobs. This type of censureship had no right in American education systems then, and cer tainly has no right there now. Students should remember that the right to free speech--which they had fought for a few years back--applies to everyone and not just those with views with which they agree.