Letters to the Editor
Smart funding
Editor:
How would you like registration and books paid for? That’s the
idea
behind the new Scholarship Resource Center. If run well, it has
the
potential to reduce financial strain on students. This explains
why all 13
student government officers support the program. Unfortunately,
there seems
to be some confusion over this fact.
To set the record straight, the Scholarship Resource Center will
go
through. Originally, there was no money for it and students were
expected
to finance the entire program. Students balked at the idea by
voting down a
referendum which would have raised their fees slightly to pay
for the
center. Turns out, the students were probably right.
Where there was no money before, certain administrators have
now
generously agreed to put up partial funding for the center.
They,
hopefully, agree, as most of this year’s Student’s First
officers do, that
a Scholarship Resource Center not only benefits students, but
benefits UCLA
as a whole. Therefore, it’s a good idea for the administration
and students
to fund the center.
The center will be the only one of its kind in the UC system and
could
serve as a model for others to follow. Now, in the spirit of
cooperation,
the administration will contribute $80,000 for the center, and
students,
through their Student Fee Advisory Committee, will also
contribute
$80,000.
While in the past Student’s First officers may have opposed the
program
because other leaders wanted students to pay for it solely, now
they
support the center. No one doubts such services are needed for
financially
overburdened students. But, when it comes to spending large sums
of student
fees, we must be smart and negotiate smartly, or students could
end up
paying more than they bargained for.
Dan Ryu
Fifth-year
Communications
Here’s to the end of an era
Editor:
As the Terry Donahue era in UCLA football ends, I am left with
the same
question that bothered me through all but the first few of those
years: How
could a coach with that record of success and that personal
identification
with the university generate as little emotional support from
the alumni as
he appeared to do? I had occasion to do some archival research
on the
Florida State campus one fall early in Bobby Bowden’s tenure
there, and
wondered why Donahue had never gotten the personal enthusiasm
that Bowden
had already achieved.
My principal memory of the Donahue era is not any of Donahue’s
victories
on the field, but rather a presentation he made to the
Legislative Assembly
of the University Senate in opposition to a proposal of some
faculty
members for UCLA to adopt a policy of freshman ineligibility,
even though
the NCAA as a whole had rejected the idea. Donahue gave a
low-keyed,
unemotional, but entirely convincing analysis of the consequence
on
recruiting by UCLA coaches if the policy were adopted
unilaterally. I had
the strong impression from his speech that this was a man who
belonged in a
major intellectual institution – and I have no illusions that
many football
coaches would have given me the same feelings.
Let us recognize that the Donahue years were one of the glory
periods of
UCLA athletics, and wish him well in his future endeavors.
George Hilton
Professor Emeritus
Economics