Southeast Missouri State University - Sagamore Yearbook (Cape Girardeau, MO)

Page 26 text:

K W ' . W I 'ea f W W :WV 1 v- , Y W , -422 W, .,. FK 4

Page 25 text:

University Shuttlebus service delivers coeds from University hall to the front of Academic Hall. As construction progresses, mud and rocky land gradually are transformed into the Sprigg and Washington Street parking lot. Detour signs are necessary when parking lot construction is in progress. Parking 21

Page 27 text:

Regents review open house policy August 1975-Univeristy dormitories d no open house regulations. Spring 76-University dormitories are granted iited open house hours up to a maximum 26 hours each week. August 1977- tiversity dormitories are given more stricted hours for open house limiting the tal hours now to 15 tfz per week with 'icter enforcement. September 19, 77-A handful of University dorm :dents protest more stringent resident Il rules and camp-out on Academic rraces gathering signatures in protest. ptember 21, 1977-Students hold otest ralIy on the steps of Academic Hall d present 1,800 signatures to Robert E. estamper, University president. Open house, open house, open fuse, chanted about 350 students thered before Academic Hall. Some idents even wore T-shirts with the mgan, Leestamper's campers. The idents presented Dr. Leestamper with a tition of grievances which read: We the lowing students of Southeast Missouri ite University are petitioning for a change the present open house policy. We feel at we are responsible for our own actions ring open house. We demand that each iividual housing unit determine its own fusing visitation rules and that the :dents in those dorms be the ones who 'muIate and approve these rules in a fair d democratic election. Basically, the demonstrators were ggesting three things: extended open use hours, 24-hour open lounge and a used door policy. During previous semesters, students :re allowed simply to escort their guests and out during the appropriate hours. mwever, this year's policy was strictly forced. Students were required to check ests in and out at the front lobby by jning sheets and leaving student I.D. rds. The protesting students complained it this procedure is too time-consuming. Also, stricter supervision was required is year. Staff members or other individuals proved by the dorm's house council are responsible for each floor during ten house. -eestamper defines open house However, from the very beginning of e controversy, Dr. Leestamper's position as clear. He did not approve of tervisitation which included a closed mor policy. He stressed on more than one :casion that he would not recommend is type of policy to the Board of Regents. '. Leestamper explained the differences etween open house and visitation to staff by joni Adams members, Open house is when it is appropriate for various residence halls, on a planned basis, to have members of the opposite sex over for studying, talking, record playing, and other such activities. However, during intervisitation the doors may be closed, and while some of the same activities occur, the range of activities is enhanced. I don't think the University should enhance or sponsor these kinds of expanded activities. These distract from the educational purposes. SGA endorses protest A resolution was passed by the Student Government Association which endorsed the protest and pledged the cooperation of SGA in working with the University administration toward a more agreeable policy. The movement was started by several residents in Towers, and the spokesman for the group was lim Benz. However, as the protest lingered more and more students joined in. Dr. Leestamper agreed that the matter would be brought before the Board of Regents for consideration at the November 17 meeting. Between October and November many rumors circulated concerning the open house situation. According to one member of the student protesting group during the first week of November, the University could be in direct violation of the United States Code, Section 1983 which concerns right to privacy. The protestors also noted that the American Civil Liberties Union QACLUI had offered its support, but the students declined the offer. University is within legal limits In contrast, Dr. Leestamper indicated that the University was on firm legal ground on its position of intervisitation and discovered that the University seemed to be in compliance with recent court rulings. The most recent case occurred in New Mexico where students went before their Board of Regents claiming that the University's restrictions prohibiting intervisitation were unconstitutional. The case went to the New Mexico Supreme Court in 1974 where it ruled that the students rights had not been violated. They said that the University's restrictions were reasonable, served legitimate educational purposes, and promoted the welfare of the students at the University. Regents hear arguments The room was crowded with students during the November 17 meeting of the Regents. Dr. Leestamper made his recommendation against intervisitation. As expected, he urged that the Board endorse current policy which prohibits intervisita- tion. He added that any other course of action, in the long run, would be, in his judgment, detrimental to the basic responsibilities of an educational institu- tion. jim Benz presented the protestors' feelings to the board. He also cited information gathered from a recent housing survey distributed to all on-campus residents by the Student Government Association. About 1,500 of the 3,150 were returned. Of the students who returned the surveys, 64 percent were not satisfied with the open house policy as it currently exists in the dorms. Also, 72 percent of the students said they would like to see an increase in open house hours. Other students oppose intervisitation The Board of Regents also heard an argument against a more liberal open house policy from Mark Lodge, a resident of Myers Hall. He felt that a more liberal policy would have an adverse effect on students. Other students have since joined Lodge in opposing the idea of intervisitation although they were not as publicly vocal as the other side. Kim Foutch said, I feel the open house policy is basically good. What students don't understand is that the security of the dorms and residents is at stake. With a 24 hour open house policy, the dorms stand wide open for anyone to come in and vandalize them. Another security factor is the safety of the residents. If open visitation occurred, anyone could walkin and not be noticed. With the attacks on coeds in the past, nonsupervised open house seems to be an open invitation for further assaults. Kevin Miller commented, In an issue that is this controversial, I believe that a conservative approach is the best solution. We must advance a little at a time so that the final result will be the best for all students. I like the open house policy within the University guidelines as they stand now, said Amy Heisel, 'fl think there are enough hours. I don't want any more days. The Board of Regents decided to prepare a more comprehensive survey of both students' and parents' feeling on the matter. Until then no policies changed. In protest to the open house policy, Mike Jacobs, john Mochi, and jim Benz pitch a tent on Academic Terraces. The protest results in a meeting in the President's office, with Dr. Leestamper and Butch Smith, associate dean of students and housing director. Dorm Restrictions