University of Massachusetts Amherst - Index Yearbook (Amherst, MA)

Page 29 text:

UMies Choices: Things We Have Seen UMies Doing Popping.' pop corn . . . pot seeds . . . pop tarts . . . pills .. . Drinking: beer ... wine ... Power Houses ... Kefir ... Smoking: joints ... butts .., bongs ... menthols ... Reading: Collegian . . . Playboy . .. Cosmo . . . yearbooks .. Exercising: jogging ... squash ... minds ... sex ... Listening: disco ... jazz ... classical ... punk ... Dancing: disco ... ballet ... modern ... folk ... Arguing: roommates . .. Debate Team .. . grades . . , Financial Aid . . , Eating: ice cream . . . subs . , . frogurts . . . macaroni 'n cheese Celebrating: keg parties .. . Schiltzerama . .. Senior Day . .r Graduation . .. Leisure Time: Top Temm ? I .92 c r: 4 Passage - E WDC Bro Z W 15 ui: W 'Q 2 3 Q eu E o O Rumors-Fleetwood Mac Aja-Steely Dan Stranger-Billy Joel at 5

Page 28 text:

Lance was dropped by the Attorney General's Office in Atlanta. Lance had failed to file reports with his outside business interests and personal bor- rowing, as required by statute or regu- lation. A total of fifty bank loans were not reported. The constant harassment by the me- dia and the never-ending questions hurled at Lance by government agen- his credibility as OMB Director The American people were becoming skeptical perhaps the President was betraying them by trying to protect a man who was not fit to stand up to the ethical standards that he had set up during his campaign speeches Carter announced Lance's resigna- tion on September 2'Ist, after three days of defense testimony by Lance be- fore the Government Affairs Commit- tee. Carter accepted the resignation with the greatest sense of regret and sorrow . He replaced Lance with james T. Mclntyre, also from Georgia. Per- haps the President had learned to dis- tinquish between comradery and credibility. - jim Braver OMB Director, a criminal case against cies Were enough to Pefman3mlY harm 006.45-Am, aoii of Pefficlyooo demic Deans, sensing my lack of sup- port from the Chancellor, as well as my dissatifaction with their overall perfor- mance, began to insist that the exercise of the Provost's perogatives were de- pendent on their approval. At no time did the Chancellor make it clear to the Deans that I was their superior, not vice versa. Instead, he urged that I reach some kind of accommodation with them despite evidences of gross in- competence. I was, for instance, to ig- nore budget overruns and the misuse of personnel funds, and permit the Deans responsibilities which my prede- cessors had always exercised indepe- dently. After all, the Chancellor could hardly appeal to the Deans to support his presidential candidacy and, at the same time, permit me to impose ac- ceptable standards of performance. Matters came to a head in late No- vember when I announced, after a year of study and consulation with ap- propriate graduate faculty and the Deans, for the reorganization of the Graduate School, which was strikingly similar to one promulgated and ap- proved several years earlier by my pre- decessor. While I had been directed to put the plan into effect by the Chancel- lor several months earlier, he agreed to a Faculty Senate resolution to delay im- plementation even though the Senate, in along debate, was unable to cite any substantive objection to my proposal. Presumably, it was unworthy because I was its author. Following the November meeting of the Senate, it was clear that my useful- ness as Provost was at an end. In the succeeding weeks, I began to reorder my life and prepare for the inevitable resignation. On Christmas Day, the Chancellor came to my home bearing gifts and promising, in a disgraceful act duplicity, that I had his strong support and this support would be demonstrat- ed in tangible ways after the holidays. A few weeks later I was told by a faculty friend that at almost the very moment he was pledging his support, he was conspiring with the Deans to oust me. Early in january, the Deans requested that I resign immediately because I would not permit them to dictate budget decisions or approve staff ap- pointments in my office. I, in turn, asked several Deans to resign on the grounds of poor performance. As my subordinates, the Deans had no legal authority to request my resignation. As Provost and acting Chancellor lDr. Bro- mery was out of townl, even they clear- ly understood that I had the authority to request theirs. Upon his return to campus, and without examining my lengthy written case for the removal of the Deans, he dismissed me for my percepitous ac- tion against the Deans. However, in my final conference with him, he com- mented: Some people say I've sup- ported you too long and it's affecting my presidential chances. So you can understand why I can't work with you any longer. For a man who had never supported the policies he brought me to the University to implement, this was the final act of perfidy. I was clearly the victim of the Chancellor's misguid- ed ambition, an ambition which, as later events revealed, he was never destined to fulfill. It is significant that throughout the turmoil that surrounded my incumben- cy, no successful attacks were made upon the soundness of my policies. Even the Faculty Senate charges of pro- cedural transgressions fell on barren ground. It is clear that the principle ob- jection to me was not simply my race, but my unwillingness to embrace the stereotypes of servility and deference which are still ascribed to my race and which, unfortunately, were the hall- marks of the Chancellor's dealings with the faculty over many years. Some rac- ist faculty were quite open in their views, referring to me as the Choco- late Mafia and nigger , Others were less overt, expressing their more sophi- sticated racism by seeking to deny me prerogatives freely and openly exer- cised by my white predecessors. Either way, it is clear that a vocal minority was unwilling to accept the academic lead- ership of a black Provost who would not blindly follow their self-interested view of the University. The shame of it all is that they persuaded a black Chan- cellor to become a willing partner in their perfidious designs. - Professor Paul Puryear

Page 30 text:

Two major fires occurred on campus this past year. One was in Mary Lyon dormitory in Northeast, and the other in Field dormi- tory in Orchard Hill. Firefighters battled the blazes which left moderate fire and smoke damage in the rooms and through- out the hallways. Fortunately no one was hurt, and these fires prompted the Univer- sity to study the hazards of fires on campus. Improvements: Alarmeooo Fires in dormitories and on campuses in general were an issue in 1978, spawned by major blazes in dormitories at Providence College, Syra- cuse, and Hampshire Col- lege. The Providence fire killed ten women, and four fire- fighters died in the Syracuse blaze. Hampshire College suf- fered a fire that destroyed approximately one-fourth of a dormitory there, but re- corded no injuries. Here at the University there were several one-room fires, with no injuries, and a moderate property loss. The Division of Environmental Health and Safety concluded an eigh- teen month study of dormitory fire safety, and projected recommenda- tions that the University should adopt to make the structures more fire-safe than they presently are. This study included an overview of many New England college dormitory complexes, and the securing of services of a number of renowned fire protec- tion engineers for consulting purposes. Of the recommendations, which in- cluded new fire alarm system installa- tions, smoke control and stairway pres- surization, corridor and room material combustibility limits, and smoke and sprinkler system additions, one item was instituted immediately. The first recommendation to install smoke detectors in all student sleeping areas was acted upon, and 7,000 photo- 2 j electric smoke detectors were pur- chased and installed in the rooms dur- ing intersession. The devices were plugged into the electric outlets in each room, and will be permanently wired to the building electric system during the summer. The smoke detector can sense a fire in it's incipient stages and warn occu- pants of the room minutes before smoke and heat conditions can make the room untenable for human habita- tion. The other recommendations sighted by the study are being scrutinized for cost implications and will be budgeted on a long range basis. Already for fiscal year 1979, half a million dollars has been set aside for fire safety improve- ments in the dormitories. The University also promoted fire safety by the distribution of literature to all students in the form of a pamphlet, and also in- stalled, on the door of each room, instructions for safely evacuating from a fire situa- tion, or to handle being trapped in a fire. Students were often re- minded of fire safety, if not by articles in the Collegian, on the various posters on campus, then by participat- ing in the fire drills that have become common occur- ences on campus. Sometimes, the fire alarm horns would sound for nei- ther a drill or a fire, but be- cause some prankster or some alcohol-influenced person decided to turn in a false alarm. More often than not, these irresponsible people would not be apprehended. But when they were, arraignment in District Court followed, with severe penalties. A fine of seven hundred dollars and probation for one year was not an un- common sentence, which helped tre- mendously in reducing false alarms by 400f0 this year. The University is hopeful that in the overall learning process each student is exposed to while attending UMass, he or she has also digested information on fire safety and preparedness that can benefit them in years to come, another one of the extras that made their col- lege education a worthwhile exper- ience. - Keith Hoyle UMass Fire Marshall