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.

UI4 ( tamerwck Editor .BOBBAKER Managing Editor News Editor CARL NAYLOR MARION ELLIOTT Advertising Manager ART FRANK Alitoeg the GAME COCK is a publication of the students of the University of South Carolina. it Is not an official publication of the University. The opinions expressed terein do nt necessarily represent those of the University, the student body or all the staff members of the GAMECOCK. Tuition Increase: Just How Necessary Is It? At first glance the $25 per semester increase in tuition fees approved the USC Board of Trustees at its summer meeting may seem logical and even necessary in these inflationary times. It is general knowledge that the University now needs added revenue because of the cut in its requested budget by the General Assembly. A cut of $2.3 million in ex pected funds is not easy to replace. However, the general attitude of the administration toward the increase and its effort to make the raise an isolated incident don't appear logical and raise doubts about where the administration's priorities lie. In remarks before both the Trustee Executive Committee and the full Board of Trustees, President William H. Patterson said USC was fifth highest in the nation in both in and out-of-state fees in -67-'68. "Now we are twenty-fourth in in-state fees and thirty-fourth in. out-of-state fees," he said. "We think it's about time we regained our prominent position," Patterson said. It is granted this may be considered an"off the cuff" remark. However, that Patterson said it before both groups concerning increases in student fees which should be a solemn decision and one studied very carefully raises doubts about just how sincerely the matter was studied. Although USC may have fallen from its "prominent position," fees were still $22 per semester above the national median for state universities in '74-'75 ac cording to the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. The approved increase will be the seventh in the past ten years. In September fees will have increased from $195 to $327 for resident students and from $345 to $707 for non-resident students over the past ten years. When asked by Board member Othneil Wienges if the University needs money bad enough to raise fees, Patterson's first remark was "If not, faculty travel would have to be cut." He cited other reasons after momentarily stumbling, and Bernard Daetwyler, vice president of finance, came to his rescue with some sound figures. But, Patterson could not rtract his first remark when unexpectedly questioned Wienges in an unjoking manner. While faculty travel may be nice and necessary to a certain degree, it isn't generally con sidered as a necessity for ra ising tuition. After all, since when has faculty travel become more important than providing a good education for students at the lowest costs possible. How carefully could the increase have been studied if the possibility of having to cut faculty travels entered Patterson's mind first? Were other alternatives carefully considered? Reasons cited by Daetwyler sounded reasonable. A rise in utility costs of $800,000 in the past year from expected costs could prove burdensome. Paired with inflation, the increase may be necessary. However, it is hoped the administration and the Board of Trustees remember the 20,000 students per semester and the 7,000 each summer session who make up a big part of this university. Anything placed before that group in priority should be carefully considered. Also, any decision which affects that group as much as a tuition increase should be studied very carefully. Very carefully. ME E Since When Do Faculty Get to Make Their Own Dcisions Letters Sicmunt Womk her o Fracul.ty Gtet to ntwekeyi u Ter OwEdtr"sc toaL etterseivd Weimleiig somed, he GAMnECOCKter ofn2i0ewords communtyer ae tir piniornce adu thot knace toeourreaens. An,It is your "ectters o the Editorset-w tiotn allyu letters, evd athough loer lete withll andesner areson Preferabny, duetr should requireenwts. nAmand tisth dresio of the eitors thatude Preaseraellve letters shoul sonally to our office In Room 318 Russell House or write Campus Opinion, Drawer A, USC, Columbia 292n08' isw As4 In July of 1974, almost three weeks after Dr. William Patterson became President of USC, a vast reorganization of the administrative super structure at Carolina was announced. Patterson made the comment then that different educational techniques would be undergoing scrutiny "to see whether the road we took (during former President Jones' 12 years as president) was the best one or whether there are greater improvements." At that time, Dr. Patterson emphasized that initiative and independence would be necessary in each department saying he wants, "the faculty to study their own affairs and make their own decisions, and students should do the same." How unusual that statement is. For exactly one year after Patterson's inauguration as president, it seems rather evident that although teachers may be granted the op portunity to study their own affairs, they sure as Hell aren't making their own decisions, as the recent merger of the schools of Arts and Letters and Social and Behavioral Sciences indicates. For 16 months, a faculty subcommittee, studying the possibility of merging the three schools (of the old School of Arts and Sciences), listened diligently to faculty and heads of departments express their feelings about a possible merger. Not only was the faculty of the three schools clearly opposed to the merger, but the heads of the departments opposed the combination four to one. Even the final recommendation of the subcommittee was to leave the three schools as they are at present, However, on May 28, despite clear opposition from faculty and behind closed doors in executive session, the Board of Trustees listened to the President's reasons for the merger and stole the show from the faculty by voting for it. If the faculty of this University believes it has been dealt underhandedly, it has every right to. We of the GAMECOCK are very aware of an apathetic mood permeating the faculty-at-large. The -in cessant "why bother?" or "it's just a waste of time" is giving the administration leeway to do whatever it wants. In Dr. Patterson's letter of May 28, he states that "as I have relied upon your advice in making this decision, I now ask your support in implementing Just whose advice is Patterson relying on? The faculty has no real reason to support the merger in seeimg that it is implemented, for indeed their advice was not relied upon. We hope that the faculty will be vocal in its disappointment of what the administration has done, but we also desire that their disappointment will not filter down into the classroom. RLB