{ title: 'The Spectrum (Buffalo, N.Y.) 1955-current, September 28, 1979, Page 3, Image 3', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-28/ed-1/seq-3/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-28/ed-1/seq-3.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-28/ed-1/seq-3/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-28/ed-1/seq-3/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: University at Buffalo
by Robert G. Basil Contributing Editor to help out during the interim because it believed the survey to be sloppily tabulated and open to fallacious interpretation. In place of SCATE, many departments had to resort to their own individual evaluation processes. While these results were available for student perusal, they were not published campus wide. Fifty-fifty. SCATE. the Student Course and Teacher Evaluation book, will be published with the help of $5000 worth of funding delivered directly from the University The deadline for student completion of this Tail’s SCATE forms has been moved ahead one month from its original October deadline, Carmack said. Student observers feared that the early deadline would impugn the survey’s reliability and alienate possible faculty and Administration supporters of SCATE. The survey is hoped to be published in time for Spring pre-registration. Faculty are now evaluated for tenure and promotion by Administration. UB Assistant Executive Vice President Robert Wagner said Wednesday. The Undergraduate Student Association (SA) will shell out the other $5000 needed to get the survey off the ground and into the hands of the undergraduates here. SCATE is a published handbook detailing students’ views towards courses they have taken and the instructors who have taught them. Designed to “help students in their selection of courses and instructors,” according to SA Director of Academic Affairs Judiann Carmack, the book also hopes to “help teachers improve . . . pointing out their weaknesses.” ¥ Faculty support SCATE aided by Administration Before the Administration would relent to partially support the survey* after declaring their philosophical support of it ip a meeting with student leaders two weeks ago. President Robert L. Ketter’s office suggested that a faculty poll would be necessary to determine the feasibility of SCATE. In' fact, 22 departments have “all of their faculty participating in the survey,” according to Carmack. The Administration’s $5000 grant, however, may well be just a one semester deal, according to sources in both the Administration and SA. Since, according to UB Vice President of Academic Affairs Ronald F. Bunn, SCATE is a “student-sponsored activity.” SA should fully fund similar- projects in the future. Bunn suggested that the faculty could possibly “help out” too, since the faculty “may benefit from the survey.” teams formed of other faculty, department heads and Deans. According to Bunn, the Deans are looking to encourage more programs enabling faculty to evaluate themselves. As a student survey, “SCATE is not meant to be used,” Carmack noted, “for (professional] ... or advancement procedures unless the instructor so chooses.” It is presently not determined how the Administration will allocate the funds, or from what part of their budget the money will come. Carmack speculated that SA will set up an account with the Administration and draw from it until the S£000 is depleted. Bunn suggested however, that the money may be scooped form UB endowment funds—-investments on gifts made to this University. According to' Bunn, theState doesn’t support “this kind of activity” and has not allotted the necessary funds in its budget. • ,«. s Sa Spring and Fall 1976 Results Third Edition Sloppy ta halation SCATE has not been published since 1976 due to SA’s inability to foot the bill. The Administration had declined Rights of Conscience ultimatum: recognition or lawsuit by Elena Cacavas News Editor The Spectrum Monday that he supported GSA’s contention that the group sought recognition for “purely political intents.” technical reason cited, according to Huber, was that there are no provisions in the GSA Constitution for recognizing groups not funded by student mandatory fees. “Groups constantly overrule their guidelines, but GSA said such action was not acceptable,” Huber charged. “I think these technicalities are a sort of smoke screen for the real reasons for denial. There should be a greater appreciation of First Amendment rights. The UB Rights of Conscience Group, denied recognition by the Graduate Student Association (GSA), has asked University administrators to either intervene and reverse the decision or address the issue id court. Rights of Conscience Vice President Janine Huber charged that GSA’s “real” motives for denial stemmed directly from differing philosophies between the two groups. Rights of Conscience stepped into the University spotlight last Spring when it publicly opposed mandatory abortion coverage under the Student Health Insurance plan. The mandatory policy was supported by GSA. But according to GSA President Joyce Pinn, the group sought recognition solely for “legitimization” and demonstrated no special interest in the aims and purposes of the graduate student government. Recognition entitles an organization to certain privileges such as space in Squire Hall and access to the campus mail service and resources. University policy entrusts student governments with the power to grant or deny recognition, “so long as by doing so University policy is not violated.” But Rights of Conscience charges that not only is University policy—calling for students to have maximum use of facilities —being violated, but that U.S. Constitutional rights are also being jeopardized. “We see the issue at hand,” Huber explained, “as a violation of speech, association and assembly.” The question was originally discussed at the GSA’s June 13 meeting, but “serious issues brought up,” according to Pinn, postponed the vote. Recognition was finally defeated on September 12, 11-14-6. Huber explained that recognition was sought through GSA because Rights of Conscience has a heavy graduate student constituency. “But we also tried other organizations and they believed we didn’t really belong with them,” She added that the overture was made to seek recognition through the undergraduate student association (SA), “but we got strong indications that it would be tough for us to go that route.” told IP Huber maintained that Rights of Conscience wants only the privileges granted through recognition. “Funding is not an issue,” she said. “We want to be able to hold meetings and invite speakers and we need a place in the Union to do that.” Not funded Pinn said Monday that if meeting was their sole desire, the group—operating as a study group—could still assemble. But Huber maintained that UB Student Rules and Regulations does not allow any unrecognized group use of campus facilities. “And Squire House Regulations,” she added “allow only casual study groups to assemble. It is unacceptable for us to operate under that guise.” She added that Pinn’s allusions to intentions other than meeting rights, “doesn’t even Students in control “The stand we have taken on campus,” Huber added, “is the major problem. At odds are philosophical differences. Some in GSA do not want people like us on campus.” The position advocated by Rights of Conscience regarding abortion coverage called for an optional clause to be offered in the health plan contract. Huber said time is an important aspect now in gaining meeting privileges. “We want to hold meetings and invite speakers. We have definite plans for court action,” However, those plans are targeted at the University. Prior to the 1960’s, recognition power was vested in the Administration h$re. Under the SUNY Chancellor’s guidelines, the Administration can grant that authority to any body within its institution. The UB student governments received that power in the late 1960’s. “Some UB administrators have voiced their support of us,” Huber explained. “They just would like to avoid contradicting a decision made by a student group.” She said that an attorney accompanied Rights of Conscience representatives to the September 12 GSA meeting. He then drafted a letter to the Administration advising that “if immediate action was nof taken to grant- recognition, legal routes would be pursued.” In support of her group’s argument, Hubert cited a 1972 court case, Healy versus James, in which Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) sought recognition on a college campus. She said that the Supreme Court ruled that the university was obliged to allow 1 students use of its facilities. “Denial,” Huber maintained, “was deemed a violation of speech and assembly.” deserve comment.” A central peg in GSA’s defense is that Rights of Conscience does not have its financial accounts registered through Sub Board. Pinn said that if GSA had no check on the group, money solicitations by Rights of Conscience could damage GSA’s credibility. The Committee formed to study group recognition guidelines Attributed in part to past controversy clouding the question of group recognition on campus and also to a need to review and possibly redefine the recognition process, a University committee of student and administrative constituents was recently established. . which have appeared in the granting policies over the years need attention. He cited, for example, Sub Board’s right to grant recognition. “That is not a government,” he explained. „ Lorenzetti also said that the Graduate Student Association (GSA) has stiffened its policy over the years. “It maintains that the group seeking recognition must be an extension of that government’s purpose. That is fine, but it should be discussed. It was not so some years ago.” Student Association (SA) President and student member on the committee Joel Mayersohn explained that formation of the group stemmed from a number of “problems.” He said, “We have to consider how recognition applies to freedom of speech and assembly. We need to re-evaluate the process and establish safeguards for the future.” According to Associate Vice President for Student Affairs—and organizer of the committee—Anthony F. Lorenzetti, the recognition process here has not been reviewed in years. “There may be some need for changes,” he said, although he would not dismiss the possibility of re-adopting current policies. The committee, formed last week, held a meeting Tuesday to discuss the guidelines used by both the undergraduate and graduate student governments in granting recognition. “We need to start out knowing what it means to each government and how they apply it,” Lorenzetti explained. “This is in effect,” he said, “the administration and students working toward one end —the maximum use of resources.” The Administration, he added, would be “remiss” if recognition was denied to a group which deserved it. Referring to the origins of students “recognizing” other student groups Lorenzetti said, “The Administration could pass on all cases, but we have traditionally wanted students to be responsible for sharing resources. “We’re an open campus and we should try to maintain as many policies as possible along that line.” Lorenzetti observed that some variations
