OPENING STATEMENT
BY
CHARLES D. HOUNSHELL
representing the University Administration
in the Hearing by the Board of Trustees of
the University of North Carolina at Greensboro concerning appeal of Student Senate--
June 4, 1973.
The issue on the appeal as stated in the rules governing the
hearing is "the correctness or appropriateness of the Chancellor's
ruling invalidating the decision of the Student Senate reclassifying
the Neo-Black Society as a Type 1 rather than a Type 2 organization. "
The bases of appeal from the Chancellor's decision as
specified in the notice of appeal of May 3, 1973, are as follows:
1. That the Neo-Black Society is discriminatory and therefore not entitled to support from State funds and student fees;
2. That the Chancellor acted illegally and beyond his authority in overruling the action of the Student Senate; and
3. That the procedures followed by the Student Senate were
not contrary to law or valid regulations and that the procedure followed was a matter of legislative discretion; and
4. The hearing before the faculty committee deprived the
Student Senate of due process of law.
NO COPYRIGHT - UNITED STATES. This item has been determined to be free of copyright restrictions in the United States. The user is responsible for determining actual copyright status for any reuse of the material.
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
CHARLES D. HOUNSHELL
representing the University Administration
in the Hearing by the Board of Trustees of
the University of North Carolina at Greensboro concerning appeal of Student Senate--
June 4, 1973.
The issue on the appeal as stated in the rules governing the
hearing is "the correctness or appropriateness of the Chancellor's
ruling invalidating the decision of the Student Senate reclassifying
the Neo-Black Society as a Type 1 rather than a Type 2 organization. "
The bases of appeal from the Chancellor's decision as
specified in the notice of appeal of May 3, 1973, are as follows:
1. That the Neo-Black Society is discriminatory and therefore not entitled to support from State funds and student fees;
2. That the Chancellor acted illegally and beyond his authority in overruling the action of the Student Senate; and
3. That the procedures followed by the Student Senate were
not contrary to law or valid regulations and that the procedure followed was a matter of legislative discretion; and
4. The hearing before the faculty committee deprived the
Student Senate of due process of law.
