The_Rambler_1971-02-18

              /tudent publication -ynj.otc. a t /arnningdole.
Trustees RaiseTuitionRate
Beginning September 1971, the
tuition charges will be increased
on all S.U.N.Y. campuses. This
decision was made by a unani-mous
vote of the University Board
of Trustees,
Undergraduate tuition for state
residence students will increase
from $400 to $550, graduate tui-tion
from $600 to $800 and pro-fessional
(dentistry, law and
medicine) tuition from $800 to
$1,200. For out of state students
the increase will be $900, $1,000
and $1,500 according.
In order to reduce the impact
on students from lower income
families the Board of Trustees
are attempting to ask legislation
to increase benefits provided un-der
the State University Scholar-ship
program. If this legislation
is passed there would be no
tuition increase for students
whose family net income is under
$8,000. In addition to this, stu-dents
whose families earn be-tween
$2,000 and $6,000 would
pay $100 per year and students
from families with net income
less than $2,000 would pay no
tuition.
Community colleges whose
tuition levels are set by local
governing boards, will not be
directly affected by the raisCc
However, since there Is a
stipulation on the tuition
that it is not to exceed other
S.U.N.Y. colleges they are now
free to raise the tuition if de-sired.
Chancellor Boyer has stated
that this increase intuition, which
is the first since 1963, is es-sential
if the University is to pro-vide
places for many additional
New York State students who will
be seeking admission.
Tuition along with the applica-tion
fee are funds which are ear-marked
for the University Con-struction
program. This con-struction
program which entails
only the actual building, has pro-vided
room for full and part time
enrollment to more than double
at these state operated cam-puses.
Operational Costs Have Soared
All operational costs are
acquired by state taxes. For
this fiscal year of September 70
to June 71 the money allotted
by the state proved entirely too
inadequate. Finding themselves
$100 million dollars in the red
the University system was forced
to place itself on an austerity
budget.
At this time each College
President was asked to cut his
fiscal budget. In many instances
;hfs resulted maintaining or de-creasing
the number of faculty
members per student. In general,
tighter controls were placed on
all aspects of campus operation.
The result of these actions was a
$12 million dollar decrease in
spending.
It is not legal for the University
system to enter a new fiscal
year with a defecit' as large as
$88 million dollars. Chancelor
Boyer has stated that it might be
necessary to make further cuts
in operational costs.
In some instances the payment
of these debts may be post-poned.
At the present time,
however, it seems doubtful that
the university system will re-cieve
an adequate increase in
funds for the budget in the next
fiscal year.
The original concept of using
all tuition monies for construc-tion
has indeed proven itself
successful. The buildings result-ing
from this policy have enabled
the student enrollment to in-crease
from 71,271 in 1963, to
155,496 in 1970. This expansion
has resulted in a tremendous
increase in operational costs.
With the tuition increase, which
will result in an additional $400
million for construction, the fis-cal
crisis will be intensified.
Currently, there are 262 new
buildings in the planning stages.
These plans, however, will be
useless if proportionate increase
in operational cost is not ob-tained,
Without this necessary
increase in operational costs it
appears inevitable that the quality
of education in the State system
will decrease.
STATE ONIvetas
COLLET OF TECHNOLOt-fFAi
rRI^W rINyGy/DqA^LrE,... .N -Y ^ -t'W'
Activity Fee Crippled
As a result of a court decision in the case of S t r i n g e r vs.
the Board of Trustees the Faculty Student Association will be
undergoing a radical change that promises tp stifle student ac-tivities
next year.
Kenith Stringer, a student at the State University at Albany, and
a member of the Young Americans for Freedom, has sued the State
Board of Trustees for requiring him to pay his Student Activity
Fee. The reason for his suit was that he was opposed to paying an
activity fee that supported actions contrary to his political beliefs.
The activity in question was the bussing of students to Washington
for an anti-war demonstration. The decision of the court was that
the State should not mandate an activities fee if the monies were
not spent in what was termed an appropriate fashion. It appears
that issues concerning religion and politics are generally the tar-gets
for accusations of misappropriations of funds.
As an immediate result of be submitted. Each College
the decision, the President of President would then have to
each college was directed to
oversee the "appropriate"
spending of funds.
At present the State Legis-lature
is deciding which of two
directions they will take in the
future control of the activity
fee. The final decision is ex-pected
by March 31, 1971. One
possible solution is that the State
uphold the mandatory fee, and
assume the responsibility for
it's collection. Under this plan,
the money would be sent up to
Albany, and a formal budget would
SASU SUES SUNY
The Student Association of the State University of New York, Inc.,
(SASU) announced in Albany today that it is bringing legal action
against the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York.
The suit, which names as defendant's both the Board of Trustees of
the State University of New York and Dr. John Toll, President of
the State University Center at Stony Brook, seeks to have the rules
and Regulations for Maintainance of Public Order adopted by the
SUNY Board of Trustees under the legislative requirements of the
so-called "Henderson Law" declared unconstitutional, and a per-manent
injunction granted restraining their enforcement. It does
not seek to have the law itself declared unconstitutional.
Richard A. Lippe, of the Mineola law firm of Lippe, Ruskin,
Kaplan and Schissel, attorney for the plaintiffs, stated as he filed
suit in the United States District Court for Eastern New York that
the rules and regulations promulgated by the SUNY Board of Trustees
violate the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the New
York State Constitution in the following respects.
1. That the provisionof the regulations which permits the temporary
suspension of a student prior to a hearing on the charge neglects
due process.
2. That the provisions of the regulations which fail to provide a
standard to guide the hearing boards' determination deny a
student the fullest protection of procedural due process.
3. That the provisiQns of the regulations which vest the functions of
both prosecutor ^and judge in the chief administrative officer of
the institution' deny a student the right to trial before an im-partial
trier of the facts.
4. That the provisions of the regulations which deem that a
student's failure to appear after being served notice is con-sidered
to be an admission of the facts stated in such charges
are arbitrary and unreasonable since there is no relationship
in the mere failure to appear and the truth of the charges.
Lippe added that SASU had decided on this course of action inas-much
as the State University had apparently rejected the organiza-tion's
previous attempts to resolve this issue without litigation.
This suit is the product of a student initiated venture which
seeks the end of existing repressive and unconstitutional practices
of the board of Trustees and college administrations throughout
the state.
Parallels can be drawn within our own college. Examples can be
seen by the action of our own administration in the cases of John
Wilhelmson and Richard Hernandez. Both students rights of "due
process" were suspended. Both were found guilty prior to any form
of Hearing Committee meeting. Richard was suspended from the
Rambler and John was placed on probation. The outcome of this
trial will be most interesting in its effect on students rights and
Administrative policies concerning students.
review all allotments. He would
use his own personal (discretion I
in regards to what he considers
a culturally, educationally,
socially, or recreationally ap-propriate
experience. Another
feature of this plan is that the
the State would be legally re-sponsible
for the spending of these
funds, and the Student Govern-ment
would be financially power-less.
Another alternative would be to
place the Student Activity Fee on
a voluntary basis. In this case
the monies would be totally reg-ulated
by the Student Govern-ment,
as has been the case in
recent years. The major draw-back
to this proposal, however,
is that many students would fail
to partake in a voluntary pro-gram,
and the Student Activities
program as we know it, could
not continue. In referendums
that were held at the State U-niversities
at Platsburg and
Binghampton, over 60% of the
voting students pledged to take
part in a voluntary system.
However, the President of the
Student Government feels that
a large porticwi of the 4,600
commuting students would fail
to take part in the voluntary
program.
At one time the units of the
State system used a voluntary
fee for a period of two years.
Chancelor Boyer has reported
that during this period the Stu-dent
Governments were forced
to use initiative to encourage
the students to participate.
Special privileges were given
to students who paid, while non-paying
students were excluded
from most activities. The end
result was that the the majority
the, ^students did pay the fee.
They were, however, more de-manding
of the services and bene-fits
that they received. Under
such a program the Student
Government is responsible for
the allocation of funds.
Either decision will hinder the
progress of Student Activities on
campus. At Farmingdale, where
the Administration is established
in the students minds as being
restrictive and somewhat re-pressive,
administrative control
has been thought to be dis-asterous.
However, considering
the small percentage of students
who are concerned about student
activities, many feel this would
slice the F.S.A, funds to a frac-tion
of what it is now.
mm ^m u©.