OCR Text |
Show IralcsNCIlll Dear Editor, U't We are ' -i Chronicle "ent The c "c V " - Grange, noneU names belonged n J know.In.cS ; il ere was not0n2 N; been contacted, and,'" was not one in 1S0 Hon rise. m For such extensive, I', a tuion risefor 1 "y to suppc J1 ties- we propose y 5 :0t the coming eleSo an An irate student t':.! Socialism? Dear Editor: Last year the athletic department depart-ment was apportioned $50,000 of student fees, (Financial Report Re-port of the University of Utah, Fiscal 62-63, pgs. 136-137.) more than any other student activity. The income from this department, which was better than many large corporations, was $463,227, and they still showed a $6,723 deficit. Furthermore, Fur-thermore, this income statement state-ment showed expenditures of $21,789 for recruiting. Pray tell, for what? In addition, $4,378 was paid for athletes' books, and $54,904 for room and board. IF THE athletic department cannot break-even, then the invisible hand of the economic market should close it down, unless the students desire to keep subsidizing it. If John Q. Public, and some students enjoy sports so much, let them pay more for tickets. In addition, let the University employees and faculty pay more than half price for their tickets. THE ATHLETIC department is an excellent example of creeping cree-ping socialism (it's beginning to gallop) and we say no increase in athletic fees, furthermore, YAF's, Bircher's and all right wingers to arms. We must stop this plague, and strive for individual freedom of choice. Finally, who cares what the rest of the WAC pays for athletic ath-letic fees. This is the University Univers-ity of Utah, which is composed of individual thinkers, and not a group of "me too's." Fredrick Paul Hal 'Robins Brent Dangerfield Self-Support! Mtc,hrbnicle: I am going to graduate this spring, therefore this letter is more in the nature of a protest pro-test on general principles than a personal cry of anguish. It seems that the general principles that guide the athletic ath-letic department need to be reexamined. re-examined. Is it a legitimate function of this or any university uni-versity to sponsor professional athletics? Why or why not? Are athletic games properly a form of physical exercise and release for the average man, or a highly developed technical specialty for a select few? Who says it is or isn't? SHOULD the University basketball bas-ketball team be composed of University students who like to play basketball as a hobby, or people who the athletic department de-partment has recurited and subsidized sub-sidized for the express purpose of wearing "our" uniform? Who are "we"? Perhaps the athletic department depart-ment could take a page from the book of the State Fish and Game Department. This regulatory reg-ulatory agency is supported by license fees and special taxes added to the price of ammunition and fishing tackel. It is entirely self-supporting those who don't fish or hunt don't pay any money to the depatrment. This is fair. IF THE University's athletes must be subsidized, let them be subsibized by the zealous alumni who particularly want a nationally-ranking team. Let those who want seats at the games pay for them. Let's build a new fieldhouse with the student funds how being used for other things. If necessary, nec-essary, the athletic department could charge a use fee for non-class non-class groups in the gym or the tennis courts. Let's have the athletic depatrment be self-supporting! Stephen J. Gold Faith Upset Dear Editor, My faith in our "reresenta-tive" "reresenta-tive" form of campus government govern-ment couldn't have been shaken sha-ken more soundly had the senate sen-ate unanimously voted to tear down the Union Building and transfer its facilities to the annex. an-nex. EVEN IF WE could accept without question the avowal that 58 per cent of the student body "frequently" attends the athletic events, we mights ask, embarassingly enough what happened to those senators representing the 42 per cent of the student body (approximately (approxi-mately 5000 souls) who don't? If this majority of people really does like the program that is being presented, certainly cer-tainly they will support it in a general plebicite. On the oth-, oth-, er. liand if. -those of us who ' feel betrayed "ana- just a little indignant about the actions of our (?) senate in this matter happen by some wild stroke of chance to be in the majority, surely those in authority will want to know of it. Will such an opportunity be given? Let Us Vote! Dear Editor, Feeling that we have been by-passed by the numerous surveys of campus opinion, we should like to put in our two cents worth about the $15 proposed pro-posed tuition fee. To those of u s attending the University with, an education in mind, it seems ridiculous to continually pay more for activities that contribute nothing to it. For those who find the activities in question essential to life, we suggest the drastic move that ' they themselves pay for it at the door. Feeling ourselves a part of the majority, we join Jaul Telford, Tel-ford, et. al (?) in asking that the question of higher tuition be placed on the ballot for the coming election. Although it's a tradition to ignore student opinion, that opinion should at least be accurately known. This might also be an incentive to go to the polls. Vance W. Rollins,, Charles W. Free, Larry K. Mill-ward, Mill-ward, David Steed, Donald Niederhauser, Dave Walker, Walk-er, Lon A. Monson Engineers Due to the fact that 1964 is the year designed to improve this country's standing in the' field of Civil Rights, we the undersigned members of the mechanical engineering depart-ment depart-ment of the University respectfully request that the tuition of all students at the university be raised not to exceed $13.00 per year. This money would be used to improve im-prove facilities of the mechanical mechan-ical engineering dept. In return the studentbody would be afforded: 1. Free entrance to engineering engin-eering week exhibits. 2. Free parking at the Merril Eng. parking lot for students and faculty. 3. With 50c and their activity activ-ity cards they will be allowed to enter the annual beard growing grow-ing contest. (Limited to males only). (8 signatures follow) Apathy Group Dear Editor: Students for Apathy (SFA) is an organization on campus that should - be given greater recognition. Students for Apathy Apa-thy is an organization designed to meet student needs at the University. The 'SFA has been organized, or as some have said, disorganized, for over a year. WE AT SFA feel that students stu-dents shouldn't vote. What good does it do to vote for student officers? Athletic charges char-ges are raised, tuition is raised, rais-ed, student art is banned, and new Presidents are chosen in spite of student government. What good does it do? If you want to become more masculine, then back Students For Apathy. Join your friends in boycotting the elections. VERY FEW people vote in elections, so why be different? Join the crowd, participate in Students For Apathy. Insincerely, Clifford Huntsman P.S. Engineers are especially welcome at SFA. tffrt mnvrr f---"' f . r lt .1.-.inrni. i jinnimnp i mmn),.juumjijuijjuij.i.iu..j.jiutii'ii, JluA'l ii.mii inn ! " f !n - U Alt; x t : Vm$ ' in &;V& ABOUT THREE or four days ago, we ran an editorial asking Officer Farnsworth for more space for our campus motor men, since it is our belief that the parking problem here could be alleviated somewhat if only more students would drive bikes to school The article was, however, not stupendously effec tive; within two days, a dempsy dumpster (above, left) crowded the above cycles into an even smaller area in front of the Union. Thanks to the Building and Grounds Department, Depart-ment, about the only place left for the motors mo-tors is the foyer of the Union Building. |