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

Page 28 text:

l'm SGH' ...334-8211 is not a working number SEMSU became a mini-community in one more way when Southwestern Bell Telephone Company gave the university its very own prefix. The 651 number was added to the existing two Cape Girardeau prefixes of 334 and 335. This expanded and modernized system went into effect july 18. Even 'though the system had hangups, off-campus calls no longer had to wait 110 rings for an operator to answer. With the new hookups, an off-campus caller could dial directly into an administrative or faculty office. However, when trying to reach a student number, the caller had to go through the university switchboard initially. Dr. A. R. Meyer, vice-president for administrative services, said that this would prevent students from making long distance calls. The central switchboard was moved to Memorial Hall from its 15-year residence in Dearmont Quadrangle. 651-2000 replaced the 334-8211 university number of years past. The new switchboards, were entirely push button with no more cords and plugs for the operators to tangle with. There were two consoles operating around the clock with about 25 operators employed to man them. Besides answering cheerfully, State University, the operators gave out thousands of numbers to inquiring callers. Administrators liked the new phone system because it allowed them to do several helpful procedures. One of these was being able to have three-party calls if one was from an off-campus line. The other was the ability to transfer a call. This was done when someone dialed incorrectly. Whoever answered could then transfer the call to the right department by simply pushing the button and dialing the proper extension. The direct inward dialing system QDIDJ meant that each department became accountable for its calls and was sent a monthly bill. Before, the university absorbed a total monthly charge of around E'b10,000, according to Comptroller Marty Roth. With the new billing method, unauthorized calls could be detected easily. For example, the Sagamore Office learned that three calls to the White House had been charged to its number but had never been placed by any Sagamore personnel. Another added attraction of the system was that an automatic device insured that someone would answer-after three unanswered rings a call would be switched to the main operator. Many students disliked the task of relearning the extensions. One senior commented, It took While the new campus phone system is being installed, operators jackie Toll and Amy Heisel take calls on the old switchboard located in Dearmont Quadrangle. Southwestern Bell offers a variety of colors and styles to its consumers. These trimline models have as their home the basement of Memorial Hall. 24 Telephones by Sally I. Davis me three years to learn the three- number ones, and now someone adds another number. Most freshmen did not realize that the phones were different, though. Most upperclassmen discovered the change when they tried to get an outside line by dialing 8 to no avail. With the new prefix, each student had to dial 6 while administrators still dialed 9. The new system did not improve the phone situation in the dorms as far as busy lines were concerned. Many an irate parent called long-distance only tc find that his son or daughter's extensior was busy for 30 minutes or more. Thi was due to the operator's inability to cu in or monitor the phone conversationl any longer. A big load was taken off the shoulders of the operators when the student directories were distributed Those who possessed these stores o information could easily thumb throug to obtain their friends' numbers ani even home addresses. . s 2.11 J 1 ., ','Vl-F .v .1--3 . . , 3 Wifi-il 1 5 2'- - V i . 1.17 A xii ft 3' T1 ill

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

Page 29 text:

,',,W,, , ,, u,..i.1:v'n, llrllll irwlf if ill'5llf'Wr, llflalZ iTF,Uu'i.,f i'1fIif'sl' ilfv-N-,il , ,X ri , X wr, , ll'-ii r ,.,. 'll' inlay, ,iii fig ' -I! Southwestern Bell operator Evelyn Schoenbech instructs campus operator Paula Stupp about the newly installed switchboard system. These servicemen make last-minute checks on the direct inward dialing system CDIDJ. By pushing and releasing a button, switchboard operator Mary South connects off-campus calls, a procedure made simpler because of the new phone system. Telephones 25