4 The Mass Media November 2> 1982

COMMENTARY
EDITORIAL

LETTERS

"Once upon a time...

No way to run a goddam newspaper

For those who never knew, or don't remember, the

free period was a one-hour block of time during the day
at UMass when no classes were scheduled. Its purpose
was to allow university groups and clubs to meet, to let
tutors schedule tutoring in blocks, and to allow student
organizations to conduct business. The free period wais
considered necessary because students at a commuter
school weren't available in the evenings, as were students
who lived on a campus.
This opportunity to meet and work together outside
of the classroom enriched the education of students in
ways that a classroom could not. Students so enriched,
it was hoped, would become the kind of alumni who
would maintain ties with the university and solidify its
place on a continuum, where a university belongs.
The free period was dropped last fall for good reasons,
from a practical standpoint. For one thing, students
would be joining UMass from Boston State and additional classes were needed. The free period time slot
could accommodate dozens of classes. Even without
.considering the new students, the free period put a crimp
in scheduling by dividing the day into early classes and
late classes. What was happening, according to the
people in enrollment services, was that students were
scheduling all of their classes in the morning block,
overloading the facilities, and leaving the campus in
droves at the free period. The afternoon classes were
then underutilized.
Last April, the University Assembly voted to reinstate
the free period. Many faculty members voted Vith student members for the reinstatement. That particular
motion was overturned by the chancellor, one of the
few times he has vetoed an Assembly decision.
Concurrent with the denial of the reinstatement, the
administration assured the student body that it would
work on alternatives to the free period for student activity outside of the classroom. One oft-promised notion
resurrected at that time was the student uniona
common meeting place in lieu of a common meeting
time.
Well, UMass has been without a free period for three
semesters now, the student union is a dead issue, students have neither a time nor a place to meet, and it's
hurting.
Although the predominant student-only elected body
on campus, the Student Activities Committee (SAC)
was able to find a meeting time this semester when nearly all of its members could meet, that will probably not
be the case next spring when the new committee is seated.
That committee will be seated in March, but to be
assured a time when everyone can meet, all candidates
for seats would have to agree on such a time this month
during preregistration. The chance of that happening is
remote, of course, and even more remote the next year,
and the next. The effectiveness of the SAC in budgeting
student money is bound to diminish as fewer of its
members are able to gather in a room together.
What is happening to the SAC is happening to all
student organizations on campus to some degree. The
larger the organization, the greater the chance that a
substantial part of its membership will not be able to
meet with the other part. The smaller the organization,
the greater the effect that the absence of a few members
will have on the whole.
During the debate on the free period in the Assembly
last year, some students asserted that cancelling the free
period had been a ploy of the administration to rid the
student body of radical political activity. Whether that
was the aim of the administration, that is, in fact, what
will happen. Political activity, already barely visible will
become even less visible, along with the rest of extracurricular life on campus. In another couple of years,
most students will not know what a free period is, or
was, and activity outside of the classroom will be a very
small thing. That is not the way a university lives and
grows; that should not be happening to UMass/Boston.
Ben Hughes

To the editor:
I am writing in response to your editorial "Ad
Standards," which appeared in the October 19 issue
of The Mass Media.
While it was nice to be given a rare glimpse into the
decision-making process of your staff on advertising
policy, I was somewhat disappointed by the results of
that process. What particularly dropped my chin were
the last two comments of the editorial: "Any policy of
exclusion based on community standards, actually,
should be as much a community decision as a newspaper
staff decision. Since no readers have as yet voiced any
objection to the "Inchon" ad, perhaps that should be
taken as the final comment." That, gentlepeople, is no
way to run a goddamn newspaper. It is a form of passing the ol* what-must-be-wornout-by-now buck and a
failure on the staff's part to accept the reponsibility for
implementing a policy of its own. No newspaper in its
collective right mind would allow a "community decision" of its own inner policiesthat is self-censorship
and a waste of precious time, especially in an everchanging college community. And to say, as you do,
that "at present, ads will continue to be handled on an
individual basis," is to say nothing for your decisionmaking process, since all ads are handled on an individual basis. How come you have no general policy beside which you can juxtapose an individual ad in
deciding?
Also, your discussion of the kinds of ads the newspaper has accepted or rejected in the past was rather
jumpy and unsure of itself, although valuable, again,
because it at least demonstrated that some necessary
brooding on the subject was taking place. The only
small bone I have to pick in this discussion was regarding exclusion of ads for "pre-written" term papers. I
was mildly amazed tttat these ads were rejected because
"such a service undermined the academic mission of
UMass." Really? Well just what the hell is the academic
mission of UMassI'd sure hate to graduate from the
flock without it having been revealed to me what grass
I'm supposed to graze on. Rejection of a term paper ad
in a college newspaper is not only basic common sense,
it's practically a law. For a student to use a pre-written
term paper in a course constitutes plagiarismgrounds
for academic dismissaland that's why such ads
should be rejected. You don't need to consult with the

Globe or (gulp) Herald to figure that out. And let's

leave the notion of any kind of "mission" to the good
Rev. Moon and others of his ilk who are presumptive
enough to take on such a thankless, if not lucrative,
task. Why can't you simply have a policy that states: we
will accept no ads, no matter how much revenue they
bring in, that are racist, sexist, socially demeaning,
pornographic, or promoting violence? I realize such a
policy may not leave you with many ads but, what the
hell, at least you'd have a policy to hold ads up to on an
individual basis. The problem is yours, the newspaper
staff's, and not the community's, whose members are
involved with much more vital decisions than deciding
for you what your "Ad Standards" should be.
John Hawkins
Philosophy '84

Wholly
without foundation
To the editor:
We have read with some puzzlement the letter of
October 26 headed "Professional Union Buster"? Lest
anyone think that the author of this letter represents the
viewpoint of union leadership, we wish to state that
such is not the case. We assume that the primary target
of this vaguely-worded attack is Edward Kelley, the
new Associate Vice-President for Human Resources.
We hav6 had, and doubtless will continue to have, our
disagreements with Mr. Kelley, but consider this charge
wholly without foundation. If the implication of the
remainder of the letter is that Tex Elam also is a "professional union buster," we consider this to be an
equally baseless charge.
Diane Paul, President
Faculty-Staff Union
Priscilla Lyons, MTA
Consultant to the MSP/FSU

No...Wo. i He
"1 o fl \ o M J_ ^ ^

-\
\