Rights, responsibility are the issue
Question—What do you think are the basic issues in this campaign?
Answer-I think the basic issue is something of a new sense of responsibility in student government. I would say one of the key issues within this area is the matter of student rights and regulations.
Q. —What's your position on this issue?
A. —Basically we feel that we are taking a realistic position on this issue. Dick and I introduced legislation into the council sometime ago, in which we called for a codification and publication of all regulations, followed by investigation and modification of the same.
Our position is well set forth in the plank in our platform in which we call for a University regulations commission, to be composed equally of students and faculty members, the faculty members not to be dominated by administrators.
The reason we call for this is that we feel that students should have an equal hand, in the determination of their regulations in the non-academic areas.
Q. —What do you think is the role of the ASC?
A. I think the role of the ASC is probably set forth pretty well in the constitution. It has legislative concern, simply over matters of the Associated Students as put forth in the constitution.
The role of the ASC, I think, could be definitely enlarged from the present position that it takes; it could be much stronger in representing and organizing the student body.
Q. —The constitution is extremely vague on the role of the ASC. What powers do you feel have been delegated to ASC, and what powers do you feel have been delegated to the executive branch of student government that you can make use of to implement your platform?
A. I think the constitution can be interpreted any number of ways. I liberally interpret the initial clauses of the constitution, which give the associated students "the right to a self-governing body."
So until I have someone force me into a different position, I'm going to assume that student government can become totally self-governing and can make the Associated Students self-governing.
I also think that the executive is necessarily limited only by two people, the president and the vicepresident, insofar as they have the initiative to move into areas.
Q. —Where do you think the differentiation should be between the powers of the Disciplinary Committee and the powers of Council on Student Affairs, assuming that COSA would put numerically more students and thereby fulfilling the purpose of a University regulations commission?
A—The University regulations commission which we propose is to evaluate and to make regulations. The Disciplinary Committee is necessarily a judicial body concerned with the enforcement or the passing of judgment in these regulations.
Q. All of your regulations appear to be oriented toward eliminating injustice in current regulations and establishing rights of students. If you have the rights, what is the need for the regulations?
A. The first step necessarily becomes to clarify and codify existing regulations, so we'll know what we're talking about.
Once we've done this, then we necessarily see that a lot—and alcohol regulations are one of them—a e outdated, outmoded and absurd. We get rid of these immediately. In fact, this is being taken care of now; COSA is going to handle this, without any problem, I think.
Right now, I don't think anybody can definitely tell us what they're talking about when they refer to regulations of the University. This is our first step, so we'll know what we're talking about.
An associated point here. No student on this campus is fully aware of the regulations which he must adhere to when he attends the University.
Now let's not confuse that with section three of our platform, the guarantee of the basic rights of due process. This is to be concerned with judicial matters for example in the disciplinary area.
Q—What relationship does this have to your regulations-forming commission?
A. These are essentially separate. One is in the legislative area and one in the judicial.In the first part, we codify, update and then begin to modify regulations through the University regulations commission.
Then we turn to the judicial area, and we guarantee the security these basic rights or due process.
Q. —Then what channels do you plan to use to implement part three?
A. If necessary, the University regulations commission we propose could enter this area. But I am not certain right now of their ability to deal in this area.
This is necessarily going to require a lot of rapport between the student body president and vice-president and the administration. Secondly, presenting good, factual, sound arguments. And thirdly, I'd point out that the Disciplinary Committee is already considering some of these—not definitely considering, but it's talking over its function and whether it should guarantee the student due process.
So there is already established an area of thought. We're not fighting a brick wall.
Q. In the part of the platform on due process, I see some possible problems. For example, that students have the right to legal counsel. Some students would not be able to afford a lawyer; would the University then have to provide one?
A. I'm certain we can make provisions for this if it's necessary. Once again, this is generally accepted due process of law.
Q. —You make references to the injustices in current regulations. What are some of these?
A. Without delineating them at any length. I think they basically include not being subject to due process of law.
Q. What is your position regarding the right of the University to even insert its authority into some of these areas, since obviously many of the cases before the Disciplinary Committee do not concern strictly academic behavior? Does the University have the right to interfere in non-academic behavior?
A. Only where the institution's interests as an academic community are distinct from those of the general community should special authority of the institution be asserted.
And I think there are a number of areas where the institution's interests are somewhat distinct from those of the general community.
Q. —Could you name some of these areas?
A—Well, the old case of 200 students who shoplift. I think it's in the student interest that this be handled through the University.
As long as we provide these procedural standards of common due process of law, I think it's in the student interest because this necessarily does not appear on a student's record, in a court record.
Particularly with the younger student, we're still in a process of transition; we're not totally mature students.
I'm thinking from this point: Is the University justified in building up this wall of protection? I think
TOM RADER
'Taking a realistic position . . . . .
it's justified. The University is not so much concerned with punishing as it is with the correction and the growth through guidance and counseling.
Q. —How feasible is your plank about taking courses on the pass-fail basis? How do you expect to get this into effect?
Secondly, discussion with the deans has shown that they are in favor of some type of system whereby a student is encouraged to increase his general liberal cultural background.
A specific example—if you're a physics major and you'd like to take Art History 40. I can probably name 50 people within 20 minutes on the phone who won't take Art History 40, but would like to, simply because it's going to ruin their GPA.
A. First of all, we think it's extremely feasible. Several members of the College Intermediary Board are very interested in the idea.
Q. You have a plank in your platform on allowing students to transfer their seating tickets to other students. At the ASC meeting two weeks ago, an amendment to the current seating bill was introduced which would have permitted this. How did you vote on it?
A. —I did not vote because this amendment included more issues than the one which we're considering here.
I am in favor of the transfer of student tickets to other students because I feel that this is simply a basic inherent consideration in the contract at basketball games of buying a ticket. The problem is with non-students who occupy student seats, as at the Nebraska game, and cause students to be turned away (250 at the Nebraska game).
I simply include student to student as being right now the best solution to the problem as it stands. Once again, my main consideration is basketball, not football.
Q—Concerning your plank on the Board of Student Personnel, how is this any different from the system currently used to select ASC committees?
A. —Maybe you would not say that this is a great and radical change; I think as a whole, though it is.
It specifically says that things shall be done on the basis of merit, something which is nowhere set forth now. Let's face it, the civil service agency is appointed by the student body president as we have it provided now.
I think this is a distinct change from the interviewing board. For instance, most interviewing boards now are pretty much of one party.
Q. —As I understand it, you want to have the student disciplinary rules codified. How extensive a codification do you want?
A. —Initially, by the resolution we introduced to the council, our thought was all those which are currently published. Then seeking a clarification of such ambiguous terms as "generally accepted code of conduct." I think we can't expect any student on campus to know what the "generally accepted code of conduct" is. His conscience may differ from the administrative conscience.
Q—In your platform, you are suggesting that this commission should have the power to determine student regulations. Does not this conflict to a certain extent with your contention that the Associated Students of the University of Kansas should be a self-governing organization?
A. I feel this is a very direct step towards making them as close to totally self-governing as possible.
Delineation and codification should be in direct proportion to the assessable penalty.
As we foresee it, the commission members would be appointed by the student body president, this being a very direct attempt to make it representative and self-governing.
Q—What do you think of the University Party platorm? Where do you think yours is superior?
A—I think that the UP platform is quite unrealistic. For example, they want to maintain the current union as an extension to a large new union. It would not be financially possible to maintain two such plants. On plank four, it is unrealistic to think of the university accepting a proposal for no disciplinary action in non-academic areas.
In their academic planks they are only jumping on the hard wagn because both the abolishment of the English Pro and reorganization of the Western Civilization program are coming within a very few years from within the departments.
Our platform aims at effecting action in these areas where no action will take place unless student government voices student opinion and interest.
1.5