Newspaper Page Text
VoL XLIX
THE MERCER CLUSTER
Page 2
What the Students
Want to Know
Realty
Paul Kirk
In The Report of the Pres
ident to the Board of Trus
tees of Mercer University,
Dr. Harris informed the
Board of the proposed hike
in tuition, for incoming fresh
man. and an across the board
increase in room and board
for all undergraduates. This
of course was approved by
the Board.
The increase in tuition, as
has been promised, will not
affect any student already en
rolled in Mercer Univeriity.
I will not debate this in
crease, for as Mr. T. Bald
win Martin, Chairman of the
Board of Trustees pointed
out, “Faculty salaries at Mer
cer in the present fiscal year
average approximately $3,000
per year less than salaries
for comparable ranks in the
University System, at Emo
ry, and at Agnes Scott Col
lege”. ", . . We are unable
to project faculty salary in
creases for next year of more
than S or 4 per cent, while
the University System has
just received from the legis
lature a 10 per cent increase."
Dr. Harris outlined the
raise in tuition, room and
board to the Trustees. “The
tuition and fee structure in
volves an increase of $160
per year for the entering
freshman class . . . the school
budget also includes an in
crease in the charges for
room rent and health total
ing $36 per year and in the
leal ticket of $39 per year.”
The reason for the increase
in the meal ticket is: “The
striking increase in raw food
cost from September 1967 to
January 1968 indicate the ne
cessity for the increased
charge in the meal ticket”
In the report a tabulation
was presented to justify the
increase. Many people can
be mislead by this tabula
tion. The report shows food
items e.g. Sugar, Salmon.
Beans, Orange Juice, Onions,
Peppers and other “essen
tial” staple items used every
day in the preparation of
meals. For twelve quarts of
orange juice the table shows
an increase of $3.00 from
$6.96 to $9.96. To my know
ledge, you can count the num
ber of times orange juice is
served for breakfast in the
cafeteria. B it, every day the
Co-op SELLS freshly made
juice. The rise in the cost
of this item should not fall
into the category that affects
the food price for the stu
dents. Since the Co-op is a
profit making enterprise of
Mercer University, then let
them worry about the rising
food costs and not charge the
students for it
Another example shows
that peppers (per bushel)
have increased in cost by
$5.75 from $3.25 to $9.00. On
the rare occussions that pep
pers are served, 1 am confi
dent the students would not
miss this item if it were not
purchased because of sky
high cost. It would seem to
me that if this vegetable has
risen in cost by almost 200
per cent, Mercer should look
for another vender to pur
chase this product. The pric
es in the local food stores
have not moved upward in
such a proportionate amount.
The rise in cost of the more
staple items is considerably
less. Frying chicken per
pound went up 2*4 cents
from 27 Vic to 30c, also sug
ar went up 9 cents from
$10.60 to $10.69 per 1U0#
Economically, the rise in the
most purchased items by the
housewife (staple food pro
ducts) pretty much indicates
the rise in the cost of living
in the United States. Mer
cer’s rise in the meal ticket
shows a percentage increase
of 9Vi per cent Economic-
market reports show that the
cost of living rising on the
average some 3 to 5 per cent
annually. It generally fluctu
ates near the 3 per cent mark.
A basic reason for my op
position to the meal ticket
hike is the not the raw food
costs, for this is minor. But,
the promise at Waverly last
June to hire a caterer to
serve and please the students
was not carried through.
This action by the Adminis
tration was in bad faith and
until they justify this to the
students a common agree
ment will not be reached.
In the last Student Gov
ernment Association Election
questions were asked of the
students on pertinent areas
of concern. One of them, a
possible rise in the cost of
meal tickets IF it would be
accompanied by an improve
ment of the food. This was
voted down by more than
2:1. Here we are, in com
plete opposite to the students
wishes, and with no forsee-
able improvement in the caf
eteria. The Administrations
concern fos the students in
this area is nill, after all we
are only students.
As for the rise in room
rent the explanation is giv
en that janatorial supplies
have increased. We will con
cede that point Also the
wages of the employees of
Building and Grounds have
also gone up. We will con
cede the second point Now
the main point what will the
students see out of this rise
in rent. If we lived in an
apartment and the owner
raised the rent some com
pensation would be made. A
new paint job or possibly new
kitchen appliances. What will
we get?
One thing would be better
service on the part of the
janitors who work the three
men's dormitories. These are
the only people who take a
“work break” of fifteen min
utes every hour. One needs
to only check in Shorter be
tween the hours of 11:30 a.m.
and 2 p.m. These workers are
having their lunch break. One
hour, which is more than
they receive, is ample time
to have a meal and relax.
But, during the remaining
1V4 hours these people are
glued to the “boob tube.”
Idealy, these men should be
paying the University for the
use of the T.V.
At Waverly last June a
number of complaints were
registered by the students
concerning the poor condi
tions of Shorter and Sher
wood dormitories. At our last
check, only some fifty per
cent of these complaints were
corrected. Shorter is one of
the few lucky living quarters
that gets its steam up during
the summer and shuts it off
during the winter months.
The faculty and staff were
also a topic of discussion by
the Board of Trustees. This
area is of major importance
if Mercer is to continue as
a University with a reputa
tion. The quality of faculty
members should be the main
concern of Mercer before
jumping into any other areas
that might tend to enhance
the beauty of the campus.
Promotions were made to Dr.
Jimmy L. Crenshaw, Mr.
Marshall Daugherty, Dr.
Carlos T. Flick, Dr. Bernard
G. Keller, Dr. Vincent Lo
pez, Dr. May F. McMillan
and to Dr. Marguerite Wood
ruff. We extend our congrat
ulations to these people.
Seven new faculty mem
bers have been added, ac
cording to the report, for the
Fall Quarter. On the other
side of the coin, 11 present
faculty are leaving Mercer.
Those leaving are: Miss Lou
ise Brown, and Miss Connie
Byrd (both retiring). Those
who have resigned: Mr. Rob
ert L. Bledsoe (Political
Science), Dr. William Eas
terling (Modern Foreign
Languages), Dr. Sherwood
Ebey (Mathematics), Mr.
Jack Jones (Music) , Dr.
Donald Josephson (Mathe
matics), Mrs. Carol Padgett
(Biology). Three other fac
ulty members are terminat
ing their one year appoint
ments: Mrs. Alice Bohannon
(Education), Mr. Robert
Miller (Modern Foreign
Languages), Miss Margrit
So land (Modem Foreign
Languages). The above men
tioned eleven include those
members of the faculty who
have submitted their resig
nation more than one month
prior to this report At the
present time we can report of
6 additional faculty members
who are seriously consider
ing leaving Mercer. AO these
people are waiting for is to
make the final arrangements
concerning their contracts
with their future employers.
This is a deep and serious
crisis facing Mercer Universi
ty at the present time. Fac
ulty do not leave a univer
sity for money alone. There
is usually some reason more
personal than this. Mercer
offers an excellent retirement
program alone with a good
bousing program to offset
their low pay scale. The dif
ficulty lies in the working
relationship between the Ad
ministration and the faculty
and amongst the faculty
themselves. The Faculty
Committee on Curriculum de
cides what ,if any, new cours
es should be taught and also
decides if revamping of the
courses offered is necessary.
Hie staunch conservation on
their part often scares fac
ulty away to another univer
sity with forward looking
In the above paragraphs
we have looked at some of
the basic problsma facing
both the students and Mer
cer University ss a whole.
Since the Mercer Cluster Is
a student publication, we
therefore are concerned with
die problems facing ns the
students. This takes the num
ber one spot of importance
over the school's piubisnw
The rise in costs for the eta-
dents is against Chair wishes
and should be reconsidered
before the freebman dam of
1969 enters MstOW in the
Fai The Faculty crisis
should also be remedied be
fore the Fall of 196a This
MUST be done for the stu
dents, for they are the main
contributors to Mercer’s op
erating budget of $5.1 mil
lion. They MUST be pleased
concerning the cafeteria. If
no action is taken to elimi
nate this situation, the fear
of a “long hot summer” will
not compare with the actions
the students will take in the
Fall of 1968. As the most ac
tive and concerned student
body, this will be their call
letters in historical records
of Mercer University.
Letters to the Editor
(Author's Note: This article is
intended to be one of a series build
ing to a definite dimax. In analys
ing consecutive elements of the re
port Community and Partnership:
Student Conduct at Brown Univer
sity as to their significance at Mer
cer it is intended that some alterna
tive to our current situation of
“negative” discipline may be pro
posed.
P. O. Box 1288
Room 316, Freshman Dorm)
Dear Mr. Editor,
Since my last not to you on
the disciplinary committee at Mer
cer I have attempted some positive
steps toward finding a solution to
our situation. Having written
friends in several schools asking
for information on their rules of
conduct and means for enforce
ment, I have begun to receive re
plies. Thus far the most interesting
comes from a former Baptist affi
liate, Brown University in Provi
dence, Rhode Island. Little more
than a year ago student agitation
for a review of policy caused the
creation of a committee of stu
dents, faculty and administrators
to recommend improvements.
The Advisory Committee on Stu
dent Council mailed queetionaires
to four thousand Brown students
and parents, of which 67 per cent
were returned and processed. Sur
veys were taken from both student
government officials and deans in
thirty-seven rather diverse insti
tutions. Thirteen hearings receiv
ing testimony from fifty witnesses
plus numerous written communica
tions and meeings with various
boards aready established on cam
pus heard from administration, fa
culty members, and students. The
Committee met fourteen times in
executive deliberation before offer-
%\Cluster
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Paul Kirk
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Tom Cauthorn
EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Wright Davis
BUSINESS MANAGER MANAGING EDITOR
Steve Darby
Bob Job neon, Don Pettigrew
Wanfiyn MUk, Deri Ripley,
Am Watters, Gary Johnson. Mary Riddle,
f
mg its report, Community and Part
nrehipt Student Counduct at Brown
University, tor adoption.
In the first installation concern
ing the report, I should like to
quote some of the trends cited in
the survey of schools.
“First, virually all of the re
sponding deans (twenty-three al
twenty-six) reported that students
were part of a mechanism ‘primari
ly responsible for formulation of
student cnduct regulations.’ More
over, the largest number of schools
(nine, including Cornell, Dert-
mouh, Illinois, Norh Carolina,
Norhweeem, Pennsylvania, Stan
ford, Swathmore, and Wesleyan
(Univ.)) reported that this func
tion was performed by joint ad
ministration-faculty-student board.
(The student leader responses,
though fewer in number, confirm
this trend).
“Second, a strong majority of tbs
deans (19) report that students art
formally and significantly involved
in rendering decisions in ha most
serious disciplinary cases. Many
schools have their own variations,
but at eight of them the responsibi
lity belongs to a faculty-student
board; at six it belongs to an ad-
minstrstion-fsculty-student board.
So-called ‘appeals’ procedures also
vary greatly, but the moat ontnmna
pattern (ten, including Amherst,
Antioch, Bryn Mawr, Columbia
Dartmouth, Northwestern, Pennsyl
vania. Tufts, Vaasar, and Williams)
provides for appeal to the president;
three schools (Chicago, Mount Hol
yoke and Pennsylvania) provide
for appeal to a dean.
"Third, the deal
(confirmed by student leaden) sug
gest that amost all of the scfaoott
we polled guarantee certain pro-
oedual safeguards to students in
volved in disciplinary cases Th
they are notified in writing of th*
precise charge against them at
eighteen schools; may be rag
sen ted by a faculty mmaber
eleven schools (seven of these
tend this guarantee explicitly
include also rspnemitetinii by
lawyer); and may present
denes sad witnesses at
this of the schools.”
This information may be
ingful to ns a Mercer, not that
should follow like the innocent
naively behind others, no
how formidable they may be,
there is a massage in tbs
at tbs i——