University of South Carolina Libraries
Ur4e Gamerork Editor 606RBAKER Managing Editor News Editor CARL NAYLOR MARION ELLIOTT Advertising Manager 10 ART FRANK Aithough the GAMECOCK is a publication of the students of the University of South Carolina, it is not an official publication of the University. The opinions expressed he n do not necessarily represent those of the University, the student body or all the staff members of the GAMECOCK. What Are.USC's Priorities? The decision by the University to continue funding a series of special programs with monies not allocated specifically for those purposes for the fiscal '75-'76 year, leaves some question as to where USC's priorities lie. Is the University interested in getting as many new programs to Columbia as it possibly can at the expense of present programs, or is it interested in developing its existing programs into quality academic areas which could give USC the kind of recognition it has wanted for so many years? While working on a story dealing with academic ex cellence, the Gamecock ironically learned that the University is in a bind to pay $1.6 million which it owes toward a computer which was purchased a couple of years ago for $3.5 million. USC's Administration had hoped the remaining debt would be paid for through state appropriations. As fate would have it, the fiscally responsible State Budget and Control Board would not see it that way, and the University apparently has a computer on its hands which it must pay for. Where is the money coming from to pay it off? Just think what could be done with $1.6 million. Just about every school could get enough funding to make its own programs really top-notch. But that's not all! While two new schools at USC are apparently being established this year without specific funding approval from the General Assembly, the University has announced its intentions to cut out any educational equipment purchases and replacements for the new fiscal year. It seems rather logical that if the Biology Department can do without a new microscope and the Business Administration School can do without a new typewriter, then the University at large can do without two new schools. Why must presently vital departmental supply budgets be cut back at the expense of new and con tinuing programs which are heavily funded yet only affect a few students? Why must academic research - funded by the University be curtailed? We appreciate the Ad ministration's analysis that while the University is actually sustaining budget increases year in and year out it is inflation which makes us look like we are sustaining cuts. Are we too blind to see that it's all the new programs and construction which is consuming a large portion of the monies necessary for continuing improvement of existing programs? What's going on here? If the University was sincere about its position as an educational institution and not as an educational conglomerate producing diplomas and other goods from its mills, students might be in a position to show more respect for the University and its somewhat lost quest for academic excellence. It seems that for months and even years, we have really given few programs a chance to really gel without deciding we'll have to cut back in this or do without that. Students do not appreciate being used as guinea pigs in the Administration's quest to get everything located at USC-Columbia. However, the University ad ministrators seem satisfied with its position of putting students through its assembly line, while students get more and more frustrated because of their school's non developing reputation. If the University had any student concern at all, it would put an end to this nonsense of allowing new programs without existing specified monies to 'oe developed and concentrate on making its present programs the best any state university in the U.S. has to offer. That should be the mission of the entire Carolina community. Maybe someday, the USC administration will see it the students' way. RLB OEMn Letter, The GAMECOCK invites all persons withil and toughts known to our readers. Itis you weekly in our "Letters to the Editor" se4 promised, and though longer letters will be I preference due to space requirements. And anonymous letters, though we will withhold n Preferably, letters should be typed with n. deliver letters personally to our office in Ro Drawer A, USC, Columbia 29208. Lively Entertainment TO THE EDITOR: I, along with several fellow 'cocks, would like to applaud Alison Estes and Julie Jones of the Gamecock staff, for their lively reporting in the Family En tertainment and Review section of the GAMECOCK. We especially enjoyed the Mac Davis article and appreciate the girls' wit and subtle humor. Keep up the good work! WILLIAM L. LANEY P.S. How about some movie reviews? Pay Raise Needed TO THE EDITOR It seems a shame that the GAMECOCK can find nothing btter to editorialize on than the recent "whopping expense" of a pay raise for USC staff and faculty. However, since Mr. Baker decided to embark on his mission of enlightenment, he should have gathered a few facts first. Fact No. 1) The salary increase was intended to place USC in a more competitive position for hiring and retaining qualified personnel. I'm sure that all would agree this Is sound reasoning. Fact No. 2) The State Budget and Control Board allocates extra monies for USC salaries when needed. This is usually a yearly "cost of living" raise. These monies are outside of the University budget. The increase Is not costing a student, faculty or staff member one pencil, publication, or phone call. Fact No. 3) The huge increase will average about 3-4 per cent per employe. Since inflation has risen around 19 per cent from Jan. 1, 1974 to date and employes'salaries have grone up (including the July 1, 1975 USC Diplorna Mill EW&LiSH bEPT. sTo TheE I the campus community to make their opinions r voicp--we are the vehicle. We attempt to print :tion all letters received. Minimal editing is Irinted, letters of 200 words and under are given , it is the decision of the editors that we riot run ames for valid reasons. Ime and address of the author included. Please Dm 318 Russell House or write Campus Opinion, raise) about 7-8 per cent during the same time, nobody is making anything out of this money that there is so much of. In fact, simple arithmetic will show employes have lost almost 12 per cent of their buying power. Fact No. 4) The reduction in custodial services is not a body count. It is a cut back in services, i.e.: supplies and extra duties. Fact No. 5) The 227 figure for new employes during the coming year might not cover the replacements needed due to the high turn-over rate here. The University employs many students and students' spouses. So, I won't even mention the staff and faculty needed to operate the two new schools scheduled to open this fiscal year. I am a part-time student, my husband is a full-time student, so cut backs do affect us. But, I am also a member of the staff. If you think we do not need my cost of living raise, try supporting a family of four, a dog, and paying for the rising cost of school on a Grade 9 salary and GI benefits. Even with the increase, most employes will still be going without. Things are rough all over, Mr. Baker. JAN S. PRICE ED.--We understand a University family's needs in these Circulation Manager GR EG TOWE RY Entertainment Editor Sorts BRENDA BELL BILLY I ,Contri PAM HU SUSAN CATE MITCH I MARK DILLARD GENE H4 BRENDA EASTERLING MARK M DANE EDENS FELiCIA KATHY EDWARDS KARENI ALISON ESTES SUSAN S HANK GILMAN LYNN StU PHIL IP JAMAA GRE.G ... ditor inflationary times and share in your concern over salary in. creases. Yet, Mrs. Price, you fail to realize that USC's salary increases are more than just a mere 3 or 4 per cent parity or step raises. Indeed, USC should be in a com petitive position for hiring, but they should first fill the positions they have now with the most qualified persons deserving of step increases. Rather than hire 227 new persons (or a total of 3,910 in '75-'76) as proposed from a present total of 3,683, the University should change the salaries in their present positions to reflect the qualifications and diligence of its workers. We have seen too many USC employed personnel reading, knitting, or playing cards on the job to believe that the present employes are working at their full capacity. We have nothing against step increases as long as they are warranted. But, with the cutback in most of the services reported last week, we fail to see how the addition of 227 employes is warranted. Besides, does USC really need twice (2,304 to 1,379) as many employes in other positions thani those filled by personnel most involved In the actual educational training (i.e. - Deans, Dept. Heads, Professors, Assoc. Profs., Asst. Profs., Instructors, Lecturers, and other faculty)? We hardly think an educational institution should operate on the same principles as a business (I.e., 462 clerical workers, 382 custodial and domestIc help, 259 secretaries, 213 labor and trades, etc....). :ock staff Production Manager T E RRY COON Editor lA KE R Photography Editor JOHNNY ORUMMINGS betors MBLE NEECE BECKY CROwE DJULIE JONES AYER KIM McDOwELL TOAwS-KI VIVIAN DAVIS TT JACK BAINE EVENS ELLEN BILES aERY DONABISE