Laryngitis Cured In Pennsylvania

THERE WAS NO ONE around the campus of the University of Pennsylvania who reacted very favorably to a flattering article that appeared in the March 3 issue of The Hockey News. The story, whose headline read: "Maturing Quakers Delighting Finke; Penn Building for Future," amplified an already frustrating situation.

The bitter irony of an article about the hockey team's prospects, written just before the Pennsylvania administration announced the termination of the varsity program at the university, compounded the bitterness and disappointment of team members and supporters. The elimination of hockey, along with the announced cancellation of professional theater at the Annenberg Center, formed the emotional basis for what developed into a monumental four-day sit-in at the Philadelphia campus.

At the crux of the sit-in, which involved more than 600 students for an 87-hour stretch, was student outrage over the administration's tendency to make decisions with what students described as a "lack of regard for the opinions of the rest of the university community."

The administration made the hockey and theater cuts, along with other budget-trimming measures, without consulting the people involved in the affected programs. Hockey coach Bob Finke, who learned that his team had been eliminated only after reading a story in The Daily Pennsylvanian, characterized the feelings of many when he said, "The decision, you've gotta accept that. The thing I'm bitter about is how the decision was relayed to me and the kids."

Cuts were unavoidable; Pennsylvania was facing severe financial difficulties. The administration trimmed $880,000 off its 1978-79 budget in the round of cuts that were announced February 24, According to Jon C. Strauss, budget director at Pennsylvania, the university was facing a deficit of nearly $6 million for fiscal year 1979.

Inflation and the refusal of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to increase its financial support of the school by the necessary amount caused most of the deficit. After numerous budget-trimming measures, proposed tuition increases and the previous cutbacks, Pennsylvania still faced a potentially crippling deficit for the upcoming fiscal year.

But on February 24, when the administration announced the first set of cuts, the students reacted with shock, denouncing the measure as a "cold bureaucratic decision."

IN AN ATTEMPT to organize a student response, the Undergraduate Assembly scheduled a one-hour rally for March 3 to protest the elimination of theater and hockey programs. The rally took place in front of College Hall, the building that houses the offices of the president and the provost. Everything was proceeding smoothly and the crowd of more than 800 listened to speakers and chanted slogans excoriating the administration's decision.

What occurred after the rally, however, was totally unexpected. Following the final speaker-- the university chaplain--students stormed the steps to College Hall and marched into the building. In a spontaneous burst of activity, a rally had turned itself into a sit-in, and the students said they meant business.

In the midst of the confusion, students--vowing to stay all night if necessary--said they were "sick of decisions being made without student input." But no one there was counting on three more days of a sit-in.

With student government leaders, leaders of minority groups, and athletes combining to produce a negotiating body that was supposed to represent a diverse student body, an organized student voice made its return to the Pennsylvania campus.

Meeting with provost Eliot Stellar, the students demanded that President Martin Meyerson return from his vacation in Barbados and sit down to negotiate with them. This, the first of their demands, was promptly met, and Meyerson flew in the next night to being the talks.

Meanwhile, a group pushing for minority representation in the negotiations took over another building. This building--the Franklin building--served as the headquarters for the Black Student League (BSL), and the negotiators at College Hall incorporated the minority demands into the other negotiations. The BSL emphasized that the Franklin take-over was undertaken in solidarity with the College Hall sit-in, and was not a "minorities-only" move.

Negotiations started from a list of six original demands that included:

The reinstatement of the hockey and gymnastics programs pending an investigation on the matter by new committees.

The reinstatement of professional theater at Annenberg Center.

The formation of an ad hoc committee to have access to pending decisions.

The formation of the Student Committee on University Priorities (SCOUP) that could veto and rescind all decisions that affect all students.

Putting non-voting student representatives on the board of trustees and stipulating that the trustees could only meet on days when classes are held.

The right of upcoming graduates to have the final say in choosing the commencement speaker.

THE ORIGINAL DEMANDS were a bold assertion by the students at Pennsylvania that they have the right to take an active part in the university's operations. The students wanted the administration to understand the feelings of those who were paying hard-earned tuition money before making such important decisions.

From that list of six, a list of 31 demands developed; and the original six remained almost intact in the final agreement.

Probably the most important demand-- providing student representation on the board of trustees--will never come to pass. The president and provost agreed to endorse a compromise resolution calling for the board to add one student and one faculty representative, both with voting rights, to its membership--but the proposal must be approved by a vote of the full board before going into effect.

Pennsylvania sources said the approval of the proposal, which would be considered at the board's June meeting, is questionable to unlikely. Aside from this proposal, however, the students did make definite, substantial gains in other areas.

One of the more dramatic concessions was the administration's agreement not to raise tuition for 1978-79 above $4,825--the level the university's budget committee recommended on February 22. As a result of an increasingly bleak financial picture, there had been talk of another tuition hike besides the $375 hike already announced. But administrators have now agreed not to push for a further increase.

ALL SPORTS EXCEPT HOCKEY were reinstated, and the administration promised to help hockey players transfer to other schools. The trustees agreed to make a $250,000 drive to fund the Annenberg program, their top priority. John Eckman, head of trustee development and operations, told the Annenberg Center's director to proceed to plan his schedule for the upcoming season. The general consensus was that the money could be raised.

The student access committee was agreed upon, and SCOUP, minus the veto-power, was also created. Administrators agreed to the commencement speaker proposal and also ratified a long list of minority demands that included the formation of a minority-advising committee and an ad hoc committee on financial aid and admissions.

The power of the students had left its mark on the university. Administrators, though initially hesitant, proved cooperative and receptive to student ideas as the talks proceeded. Meyerson, after returning to the school from Barbados, told students, "This gives me a tremendous sense of exhilaration even though many of you may be furious with me. You have to give it [the sit-in] your priority. It's more than a one-night stand. We're in it together."

It was a demonstration that enthralled the entire Pennsylvania community and much of the surrounding Philadelphia area. The sit-in attracted so much attention that Stellar, after the agreement had been signed, released the following statement:

Because of the large commitment of time and energy by so many students in the demonstrations and meetings over the past few days, I am requesting the faculty to either move mid-term examinations to the first week after spring vacation, or to allow students the option to makeup examinations at that time and to treat in the same way any other academic requirements due in the upcoming week. Final decisions in this matter, however, must rest with individual faculty members.

The faculty, almost unanimously, supported the idea and postponed or cancelled mid-terms. The administrative-faculty action in this case lent university-wide support to the actions and purposes of the sit-in.

Yet amidst the euphoric state of celebration after the exhausting ordeal, two major points remained: First of all, the effectiveness of an organized student expression of opinion was re-established. The notion of passivity that so many had attributed to students of the '70s was drastically broken. It would be overly dramatic to say the Pennsylvania sit-in marked a resurgence of the activism of the '60s, but the idea that students can still act on their own behalf when they feel the need to do so was proven true.

What disturbs one more, though, is the plaguing question of why a mass disturbance of such proportions was needed to arouse administrative sensitivity to student opinion. The administration was very receptive to student ideas and totally cooperative, but that was with 800 or 1,000 enraged undergraduates milling in their offices and hanging over their heads.

The demonstration was almost without violent incident; but still, it was a sit-in which marked a total disruption of the normal pattern of life at Pennsylvania. If that is the only way to make the administration listen, then Penn students have not really gained much.

However, it is more likely that the provisions set up by the agreement will increase the effect students can have on the administrative decision-making process; and if these committees and organizations prove effective, then the demonstration was well worth the effort.