tomnieiil
. , .. .....
"The decision handed down by the Chancellor. Saturday
ended a week of tension such as this campus had not seen
for a long time.flrere were accusations ahd~~threats"made
by both blacks and whites—But the crisis- of implied
violence and threats is ovejr and the Neo-Black Society has
been reclassified and funded again by the administration.
However, there may be another qrisis in the making.
-How—there is— the- question of' the legality of the
Chancellor's-actions. Does ~fte~or the university have-fheJ
right to appropriate, student activity fees To a specific
organization when lie actually docs not have the legal
power to do so ?Does he or the university have the right
to interfere Jn_the legislative "process of the Student Senate
_madje. ..U»-.o.tJliily._ elected representatives__of the, student
body?
These questions may be overlooked by. those who
supported the NBS since they were in agreement with the
decision. j}Ve also do--not think the Senate decision was
justified by the charges and evidence presented during the
open hearing, -but we must take into account the
-implications made by the levcrsal ofitfat decision'
According to the University Grant of Power and the
..SGA Constifutioii as stated in the Student Handbook, the
Student Senate shall have the power to allocate student
activity fees. The Chancellor' assumed the power to renin
funds to NBS, thus appropriatiiig student fees, in effect,
this means that students no longer controLstudent money
as provided for in the constitution. With this case as a
precedent, the Chancellor can allocate funds to any
uiganiaation in the futtuc. —
— ■ We find this to -be"a"disturbing thought. ii-shoTrfcr-be~
obvious that it is the responsibility and privilege; of the
students to decide how and by whom-their money shall be
spent: The univer-sity is stepping out of line and unless the
students realize it now, it-may be too late very soon.
