University of Tulsa - Kendallabrum (Tulsa, OK)

Page 29 text:

' J ,, -.-. x x - -rf -.W . my ,A-Q A , .r , -J N lf. .1,r5.. A 3' ,4 4 . '- ' !' Clockwisc from below, Communications professor Mary Jo Adams supports Propo- sition l-Ag Dr. Emery Turncr, Athletic Di- rector: Student section at a home football gameg The poll in Oliphant during thc election Q' 393 jx i 154' x +1 4 7-J' Lf. ig' li., 3-lnvfixl JM N' 'f Il X, in- A iff., pja l-ve? ina is rn: Hb it. it AAF, mf 'fr-,J hl' 1' 4 fl A iii, -4 + 1 Sif- 'l Q 'im f ill' MV' t ... . ' 5 .' n 1 I . t ,AM -tg Q H V - 'El ' ... N -3' 'fi' .w ,3'QfNf ffl:-.1 f 9' , J . if wg .W A Q-.4-Vi . X' - Q ,nc mls. M- V at-9 4, - mayfg. .Lily-.j-5.51. 3 j.- ,fin 1-? - 4 -if - 3:41 ' 1-1' ijZ ff's-y A-2 r' 5-a, ..w v-V If fu.. 'Q ,L '.: Vw- A54 fl'-' :J '. V . .1 'lg 3'Y ' if i.'l.r , '-F11 f,n'QI' ,vi.:'k'l Ext Q --.l it 5bI4f'l',.'w 3 f 4- H I 4 1 X Q' .ri- T -it-Tfi cz' . ' - f Q9 M g:,'25.x'E 3-it qt-. ,-,, ,: if Y':'gg.'4 k 5 .ifi 'f Q 4:55:55 4 Nt! ,X ,AZ A.-,A ' . lf, ' 'i' qi- '1 cn, 7-2 ' , , fl-1, -: -v. N 4 5, 7 1 A.. tiff .il - 1-1 -'die l 'lf ' N Nw- .L- 42 f .- x' -a' qpl 5 -. 'sigh' . 'h xi 63.1. Y - -.f-2-xt 'ff 1 '- 1 ,, , , . -,L 3. I-9 3511 w 1 'w' 2 '3 'I' L-Q . -f sw- f!f?'1 iQ ,'t ,f '?I'f ' fi-I ' '73,,,I K 5 F Elf'-y g ., 1 if ibtivtj ' -, . V '1 ! ' 1. . 77 M 3 L 'ff' - -U! ' r 11' A

Page 28 text:

Propositioning, TU Style by Dennis McClendon In early November, TU students voted 3-l in favor of a S15 fsemester ahletic fee. The fee, voted on as Proposition 1-A, was presented to students as necessary for TU to continue with the same caliber l,, ,,,,, .4 . athletic program. The University's board of turstees voted nearly a nit 3 . . . . ,, , Q year ago to eliminate internal transfers for the I 1 athletic program. These transfers usually took the form of tuition waivers, and had a value to the athletic Program of nearly S250,000 each Year. The trustees, anxious to increase TU's academic reputation, felt it was more academically defensible to ask the athletic program to stand alone. The trustees decision came at a time when NCAA reorganization was forcing TU to add six new sports to continue in the 1-A college division. Interim Athletic Director Dr. Emery Turner felt it was necessary to ask students to pay an athletic fee, and that proposition was placed on the Student Association ballot for the November election. In speeches to various student groups, Turner stressed the necessity of a student fee. If the proposal does not pass, it will mean the elimination of the nationally recognized men's baseball program after this season, he said. We almost had to scratch the program last year, but some emergency funding came through. Turner had adjusted the fiscal year for the Hurricane Club to pay for baseball, a one-time possibility. If the fee is not passed it will also take money away from the men's and women's golf and tennis teams. We won't be able to recruit the Nancy Lopez's with an inadequately funded program. And there's a good chance we would have to withdraw from Division l-A football. If we don't have the money, we can't start the new sports needed to retain the l-A status. He said that would mean lost revenue which TU now earns at away games such as Arkansas. Some students were not convinced, and editorials in the Collegian were split. Some students interpreted the trustees, decision as a withdrawsl of their support for athletics, and were unhappy that they were being asked to support athletics when the University was not. Others qustioned whether TU should try to play 1-A athletics, or intercollegiate athletics at all. Other students objected to the way the proposition was presented to students. Part of the controversy centered on a division among campus - administrators, with some supporting, others objecting to the proposal. In a letter to the Collegain, Dr. Twyman said he thought it inappropriate for him to take sides, but urged the students to inform themselves on the issue and vote. Proposition supporters noted the symbolicsignificance of the vote as a message to Hurricane supporters of student support for athletics. It was pointed out that the proposition would only raise 390,000 of the needed S250,000 and that nearly all other universities charge either an athletic fee or charge for tickets. The vote attracted local media attention as well. Tulsa Tribune columnist Jim Hartzell devoted a lengthy column to it, and Sports Information Director Gil Swalls and S.A. Cummunications Chairman Reese Adams appeared on a KXXO radio talk show the afternoon before the vote. Local television crews filmed students going to the polls. The publicity attracted a larger-than-usual turnout for the November election. Controversy continued even after the vote on November 15-16. Students complained of electioneering at the polls: cheerleaders passing out leaflets, pollworkers wearing badges supporting the proposition, and the advertising in the Collegian, prohibited under S.A. election rules. Engineering Senator Brian Burmaster contested the election, but S.A. ruled that the referendum was not an S.A. election, but a question placed on the S.A. ballot by courtesy. Therefore challenges based on S.A. election rules were rejected. The proposition passed 76 percent to 24 percent. One third of those eligible - 1096 - voted in the election. The charge will begin in Fall, 1979. 22 Proposition l-A

Page 30 text:

1 :Q - slums il . I7 N s '72- . Y bi 'ill i -vlan .A vffh'-?iQ,p1,, - ' ' ' ' , ,e .. 5 - f ,,...,,. .gu:3.j.'. ' 4'-' .n - 'L' 31 f 'f1G.,!v':'fk'f.iE'f'-'-1 ' LJ! 'skim .,., fr 24 Intramurals .