Marquette University - Hilltop Yearbook (Milwaukee, WI)

Page 27 text:

Sometime over the summer, the Coordinating Committee reviewed the experimental “doors closed” intervisitation policy of the 1970 spring semester and presented a revised policy to Marquette University president John Raynor, SJ. This revised policy designated specific intervisitation hours on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. It also established that lights must be on, doors ajar and a counselor on each floor plus a student host assigned to supervise the signing-in of guests. Raynor approved the revised plan which went into effect for the fall 1970 semester. The Coordinating Committee is strictly an advisory body to the president of the university. There are ten people on the committee representing University Relations, Business and Finance, Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. Unfortunately the only reoresentative of the students is Dr. James Scott, vice-president of Student Affairs. It makes one wonder where the university's priorities lie. The student body left the campus last spring assuming that the same experimental policy of intervisitation would be in effect upon their return. Over the summer the administrative mind hashed over intervisitation; at times the thought of not extending intervisitation arose. The Coordinating Committee was reluctant to extend intervisitation without first investigating the entire residence hall program. But, alas, the summer was not an adequate time to study residence hall problems. The Coordinating Committee seemed to ignore the fact that the parents consented to intervisitation by responding to approval forms sent out by the Student Affairs office last year. The Committee on Student Life also approved the intervisitation plan. Why then did the Coordinating Committee skirt these opinions and devise a plan that restricts rather than encourages the community spirit that personifies “home ? Perhaps the Coordinating Committee did not comprehend the depressive dormitory atmosphere. A more open-minded intervisitation policy would provide the student with the opportunity to identify the dormitory as a home rather than just a place to stay. Perhaps the cement jungle would then become a pleasant place, a home that encouraged a relaxed atmosphere. With this policy of intervisitation, students living in dormitories have very little opportunity to practice hospitality that is such an integral part of home. 17

Page 26 text:

16 It's Wednesday, July 1,1970! Gather up Jimmy, Jack and Joe, join the talent round-up. Round ’em up, bring 'em in. Everybody is sure to win. Step right up, here we go. Oh, what a rodeo! Bring along Eddie, Bob and Bill. Ask everybody on the hill. We’re going to have a great big thrill. Join the talent round-up. Roll call. Count off now. Number 1 July 9th Six hundred thousand 19 year olds’ futures were determined Number 2 December 24th in a scientifically devised lottery. Number 3 July 25th Two capsules at a time. Red—birthdate, green—order of induction. Number 4 July 29th Numbers one through 185 consider yourselves eligible. Number 5 October 21st There are hopes of compulsory service ending by 1973. Number 6 November 17th Faulty equipment delayed the scheduled drawing. Number 7 June 8th Otherwise the ceremony ended without incident, unlike last December. Number 8 April 21st Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you ...

Page 28 text:

• • From the superiority of seniority to the insecurity of once again being low rung on the ladder; this is the freshman dilemma; this is the bewilderment syndrome. Freshman orientation orograms have been stereotyped operations. Often, they have resulted in stereotyped opinions of the university. This year, Marquette's orientation program was given a much-needed face lift. Realizing that the traditional Welcome Week routine was lacking, the university relinquished control of the proceedings and placed it in the hands of a student steering board. The idea was elementary: students helping students; upperclassmen helping underclassmen. It was, understandably, impossible to give individual attention to almost 1900 students in four days. Hence, the group discussion format. Responsibility for the success of the program was entrusted to discussion leaders who led their respective groups through the days’ activities. The object was to keep a relatively small number of students together long enough so they would recognize one another in the daily sea of faces which would confront them later. Some felt the idea was overworked. There were too many formal meetings, too much talk, and not enough action. But most were enthusiastic about the change. The smaller groups allowed stranger to meet stranger in a more relaxed atmosphere. The discussions allowed students to ask questions of other students who were not too far removed from their own freshman years to remember what it was all about. Perhaps more importantly, the program was a show of confidence on the part of the university administration. Students ran the show. The show smacked of success. Arnold Mitchem, director, Educational Opportunity Program.