OCR Text |
Show SDS has violated no rules here The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) have applied for University recognition. The Chronicle admits that some universities have had problems with violence on their campuses, however the possibility of violence by the SDS applying for recognition here are rare. A University administrator was heard to say that he had urged people to look beyond the mountains for several years, however he thought this was one instance where the local context should play an important part in the decision allowing or rejecting SDS as a recognized University group. I He pointed out the excellent channels of communication which are open from the administration to the students. If the SDS is taken in a local context, and their word is believed, then they may become one of the most desired groups on this campus. They have promised to work through channels to do such things as publish a paper, bring in speakers and participate in debate on vital subjects. Any group which can do all of these things for a University and still foster academic freedom, while staying in the bounds of University regulations is doing something worthwhile. A law student from the University College of Law quoted the Constitution and said a group has to pose an immediate threat to freedom or advocate violence in order to be refused recognition. The SDS chapter at our University has done neither. They have agreed to uphold all University regulations and are non-violent in nature. If and when they do something wrong, they can then be dealt with, but why should an organization with such goals and projects as the SDS chapter on this campus be banned? Are they not allowed the right to organize and express their beliefs? Are they to be shunned because they seek to improve the state of the campus, and even the nation? The Chronicle certainly hopes not. We believe that all groups should have the right to organize to express their ; beliefs. This should be granted upon receipt of assurances that the organizations will live up to University regulations. If they do, indeed, intend to work within the University system for progress, then they may be a worthwhile addition to our campus. We urge that any organization- be granted recognition on the moral grounds. They have the right to organize and be judged upon their work, not on outside reputations. By Bill Stoddard Now that the elections are over, the prime concern is who will Profiident-elect Richard Nixon choose as his. advisors in the cabinet. Here the choice Mr. Nixon makes will determine the policy and action of the new administration. At Miami the decision was made by Nixon's advisors that a South-West strategy should be adopted to win their man the election. Sen. Strom Thurmond, (R-S.C.), was the key man in the southern states that could conceiveably have gone solid for American Independent party candidate, George Wallace. The fact that those toss-up states in the South went to Mr. Nixon can be accredited to Sen. Thurmond. And, of course, the senator had clinched the nomination for Mr. Nixon at Miami. Utah's Congressman Laurence Burton also had a lot to do with guaranteeing Mr. Nixon's nomination. Rep. Burton was floor coordinator for the western states. He worked diligently to prevent any slippage of delegate strength. He even talked Brigham Young University President Ernest Wilkinson from voting for Gov. Ronald Reagan of California. Of course, Utah voted entirely for Mr. Nixon, but Dr Wilkinson had been elected as a Reagan delegate and changed positions because of Rep. Burton Therefore, Mr. Nixon has several political favors he must pay off first. Here is where he might go wrong. Sen Thurmond can justifiably request that the attorney general slot be okayed and by him; also he could demand a more conservative person for Urban Affairs. This is why Robert Finch of California seems likely for attorney general, and George Romney wii' run into a |