xt7tb27ps26q https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7tb27ps26q/data/mets.xml The Kentucky Kernel Kentucky -- Lexington The Kentucky Kernel 1972-03-14 Earlier Titles: Idea of University of Kentucky, The State College Cadet newspapers  English   Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. The Kentucky Kernel  The Kentucky Kernel, March 14, 1972 text The Kentucky Kernel, March 14, 1972 1972 1972-03-14 2020 true xt7tb27ps26q section xt7tb27ps26q A
Ho-Hum!
“C H‘fl'u¢k9 It looks like that old static weather routine
again as the forecast for Lexington and
vicinity predicts decreasing cloudiness
and cool Tuesday with a sunny and mild
Wednesday. The high Tuesday will be ‘
near 50 with the high Wednesday in the
upper 50s. The chance of precipitation is
20 percent Tuesday and 10 percent
\'ol.. i.Xiii N0. 107 Tuesday. March ii. 1972 LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY "“"da-V '"ght' ,
ST W 11 C d ' ' ‘ l ’
By GREG IIARTMANN will also be presented to the Board of Both Wendelsdorf and Dean of Students “It we can get the Emergency Council
Assistant Managing Editor Trustees meeting March 21. Jack Hall supported a student records and the revision passed we‘ll have really
The Student Code revisions going to the “The non-academic ombudsman went revision that did pass the committee. This succeeded." Wendelsdorf said. The code
UK tanrd of Trustees March 21 will down in flames,“ Wendelsdorf said amendment would enact tighter controls committee will meet on March 21 before ‘
“definitely be on the plus side for US." Mondaymeferring toaproposal to set upa on students; medical. disciplinary tht‘ board meetinghe Shift and willdecide
‘ according to Student Government tSG’ second UK ombudsman to handle student counseling. and student affairs files" and the“ “'ht’tht‘r 0r hOt to accept the amend-
President Scott Wendelsdorf. grievances. ”They threw it out with no information. "Wilts—
Wendelsdorf is one of the five members consideration for what [ thought were very Action delayed “It they vote ‘em down. I'll just present
of the board's Student Code committee. rational, logical arguments.“ The committee delayed acting on Ar- ’em as part of the minority report." '
which met Saturday to hammer out the Wendelsdorf said this and another ticles VI and \'III in SG‘s proposed “'t‘hdt‘tSdm‘t added.
final revisions that go to the board next defeated proposal,which would have given revisions until the March 21 meeting. \f‘“ “0""! rules .
Tuesday. “We got some amendments that students the right to see all records being Article VI includes the proposed AStdt‘ from these tWO items. the 0006
could legitimately be called significant kept on them. will be presented to the ”Emergency Council." a group of high- committee FCaCht‘d final decisions On all -
victories.” he said. board in the minority report. placed students. faculty members and the proposed code I‘t‘ViSiOIIS (Saturday's
Although he said students would gain “There‘s a big fight ahead on this." he administrators who would meet in a crisis. meeting “’35 the last 0t 59"9t‘31 that have
from most of the code revisions, Wen- warned. “If we don‘t have really adequate Article VIII proposes that future code ht’t‘h ht‘td for that purpose Since the
delsdorf is preparing a minority report to safeguards on protecting student records, revisions be handled by the Student Af— committee staged an open hearing March
, follow up on SG amendments that were then we insist the student has an absolute fairs Committee of the University Senate 7 t0 SOtht COde FCViStOhS trOm Students.t
voted down by the committee. This report right to see them." instead of the board. Continued on Page 3, Col. 1
. at” ”WI , . .. 4‘ ~ .
F orgy unveils plans
I 27/ .. '
’1 '«..< kw“? '-:~'-;_. .:. .;. mtg-4.“: 64~4‘:‘:‘:.,,f [if/hf” 1/ la IN for fOOt bal l S t adl u m i
. m, _ g, , . ~ ‘N4 4.?» “N 'fwfix ' x”! .s In a press conference Monday (ominissmn is putting pup S9
at. ._ t Wké 3‘53 " v, “£14343" 4-,” %\t<§f\/' Lawrence Porgy. vice preSident million through the sale of bonds.
. ‘ 4‘ 'i":z:}:::--. \ '2 .«t “4,; 4/ st! .. (“lg for business affairs. presented The debt will be paid through the
. ' . i “A a“ Xv" _' ' :‘;~.W;-. 1‘ the basic design of the new UK Association's revenues and
.. h 2 s3?“ 9:" 2 {‘33, ~' ,, football stadium. money allotted to the Property
' t . .. “*0" 2 he "” ‘ . " ‘ ‘ "ll be ; dBuildin (‘ommissionforthat
5, $4 ._ t W4.“ (”I'M Porgy said the stadium wi llI g
‘1 if ’2; ‘ " .. a...“ ’“ " ~ a two-tiered steel and concrete purpose.
.,~.. . h ‘ H $2.4"--me  .: _'
policeman. Abbott made some observations about NEED A REALLY GOO U .. , ' '- '
said Aglimpseofhow such agents apply legal the “role style“ of social control agents. Then the place to go is - j . j .. if ' fl .
.the “sanctions” to specific cases soon offered They tend to have “authoritarian per- . ‘ " . ; g,“ , -
ents itself. Abbott had had “a couple of beers” sonalities," he noted, involving the “need Spengler SfUdIO ‘ 5 ; g ; ‘
king and the policeman detected this. But togiveand takedeferencein terms of rank 222 $0 Limestone ,- , ,‘ »
ent ' '. j ’ _‘ i ’_ ’ ~ '
“VS . . 6 . 9 —Engagement SpeCiaI Package— , fl -,
"mg Code reVISions on plus Slde 3-3x5 Glossies 6 Wallets imam rapt-i ¥ . ,. , . .
id‘ . . , 4 Proofs to ’ ‘ 1
cm (oiitiiiued front page I ministrators. require Graduate and Ch f . _ 1 _‘ .. : ‘ .
an Under Article H, the com- An amendment that would ban Professional Student Association 0056 rom _ . -' . - -. . .
he mittee passed amendments that sex discrimination in obtaining approval of any graduate _ z" . _ , ~ .
ave would make new dorm rules UK financial aid did pass. The students chosen to serve on S" ' g
dent dependent on a majority vote, committee also accepted a judicial boards. BEN SNYDER DEP’T STORES '. .- . .. ,
s of limit harassment of students by N‘ViSiO" 0t. Article V WhiCh would The committee defeated an - ' ~: . t . »
tinue requiring all dorm “-1195 to be forbid immediate punitive ac- amendment which would have For Your Complete 0'” 5’09 Shopping . j g ' ‘
tiate “readily available,“ and require tions (SUCh 35 withholding opened allmeetings on campus to .1 E PARKING t” The Ben A“ G°'°9° 4'
the dean or students to CONSUIt grades) against students accused students and the media. ‘HOUR FRE with $3 Purchase - - . . .
with the dorm president before 0t owmg money t0 UK- ,, _ , . ‘ i .
ning chosing a new head resident. Also under Article 1 the com- . ... "' “nun .. _ . .... . '.' ~ A, 1 ,. ;
fun- The committee voted down an mittee passed amendments 2 , ' Z .- . _ ‘
the amendment to change the which would give the University I 1 , I ' . :-
to procedure for electing members Appeals Board more power in 2 : . ‘ . A- '
best of the Univeristy Judicial Board. handling cases involving ; 2 , _ ._ - 2
fun- Proposed by Hall and Opposed by violations of student rights and 5 : , . -, . -
The $0. the new system would have . 1 E . . .' . L g
t is ' chosen jurors from the student ; 1 . ..
hese body by random numbers instead . . 2 : . ' ' _' '1 ‘ : ' .
to of letting SG continue to sele Socretas pro Legibus, : .l, ' .' f
S to candidates. Pre-law Honorary : fl , V '_ .
, The committee also rejected an Membership Drive . : f: _' , .
have SG amendment which would 2 e - op . .
have allowed legal advisors to March 6-17 ; J j. .7 j ;
r as , _ z o , . , - i .. g .
ber f‘C‘P'T‘pany Studems .‘0 W . . ; 407 South lime , I. ,
h re judiCial system hearing, in Appllcatlon . . , .
i e . . . . , i , . -,
terrogation, or investigation. . . . . . ,
ulcs - - avallable 141$ . . . , - 5
According to Wendelsdorf. this , : e nes a _ arc I . g . _‘
tary would have prevented judicial Pattel'i‘sonerOfflce ; y Z { , _. : ~
abuses b University ad- 0" : .Il : . . . .1
both y . : From 7 p.m. fl ———--????? : --..,
and s s . .1 . ~.
ident k. g ; . ’ -' ,
so The Kentuc tan 5 F c c I 5 ring , _ ., , ,. , ,-
103‘- b : ree oca o a P : , , .- .
n V a o ' . . I“ , V
I tions are now ein , . . : _ . ; _ g
:8"; APPI'CO 9 ; (compliments of the Coca Cola Co. SPECIOIS : . . .
taken by Publications Adwsor 5 of lexington) 5 . _ .
., s 1‘ ff 2 ..
c, , NANCY GREEN : /3 0 z , . ..
' ‘ , , E I ad 5 . . ‘-
.25 ‘ for next year s editors of 5 Before YOU 90 1’0 [0" a = g . _
x ; r g , .' . 1 ‘_
O o 0 o ' t ' ‘ i
‘ The Kentucluan 5 come to our Pick up your free . ‘ , ~ .1
/ / , . . . . _ ‘ ‘» '.
. . . : U-Shop T-shirt at , .
Applicants for editor are asked to deliver a : . _ '
. : Beach Party the Beach Party :
31;! two-page summary of attributes and reasons 5 M15 5 . . z ,
class . . . z ‘ . I i l : . . g
‘32 for deSIring the posmon, t“99th?” “M" a : ' ‘ ' « - ‘ , '
xam 0 : . ' ‘ '
mer . z . . Q . , . . -.
.m transcript of all college work, to Ms. Green : i'] P Hntnprfi It % n 5 . g _ _
Ken' 0 n a z : .-
mm, in Room 113 of the Journalism Building before : y p : .’ 7 . .
since . 2 E , -, ' .
at... April 4th. 5 g .. ~ .. : .
ding ' ' ' m e' : Iii? MN “I I.I\ll-I ‘.'l_' \\ \ l lull \llllxl‘.l : ’ ‘ ,
«on. The Board of Student Publications \Nill e : ”Nwrm H“ ”WW : g _
later in April to choose the editors. Applicants ; mum, _._.,..,_,.,._..; mm, W...“ ; . . ' 2
755 : . : - .' j
540‘ will be intervuewed by the board. 5 Records compliments “Wt Clam E
6.4.6- UCOOOOOOOOI.IIO.I.II.00....OOOICOOOIDOICOIOOQ..0......- OOIOOOIQOOOOIOOO....... . .. j. ‘ I .
i800 . I
l ‘ ' . . ‘ i. ,

 DJ 7? A’V/ 7“? "Mt/<9 We”
o as
C
- o
. N ew, improved Code.
' l' l b b {4/5
a ltt e etter , ut. . .
' \l /
. . , After hours of preparation, t’I‘ESident Singletary €35t a long W; \ //
p hearings and often heated shagpwcszeCially in the dVeCISion ///'/>- ’ //
. , = discussion the new Student Code to OP t e non-aca emlc om- ~/ <~ D _,
. the seventh reVised Code in Slx budsman. Whleh he was repor- \‘f/ '\ 4 K”;
V . ”/l m v ‘
years has emerged. tedly against. , \_ A ‘ \ Q
" 7' The Board‘s Code Committee Whether 01' not one W15he5 t0 \\ ‘ f , a a ‘J \/ ’ \
. . did not Change the philosophical call the DQW' COde a success for Q [(f / s" 9 VV /
z .. V ~ base of the Code. It is still a students depends on what stan- ‘ fl " _.;:5- .t ‘3‘)“ 553:§:;.;._., .2 . ' h)
V. . , _ : document that dictates to dard you are usmg. Compared to ' . .7 _.;:=E§5§E§ Wt 55355555555555 he ,9 ’
. ‘ ' students what they may and may last , year when .3“ student , - _.;:=5§§'j§§§:§:, “=5: 55355555555535: ' / “(E/g
j x ' not do. The committee rejected rewsmns were denied and the /' ., ,.;:5-=-.=:;535252§:=- /‘ _555:=5'.§§5§53§55 «t .
most. if not all. of the major proposals othhe Dean 0f Students ‘ I M ..::§S=5=55.:3555':':"' ° ‘°°§‘- '-"'=:=h'.- \h" j) /
. . changes proposed by Student accepted. this year was quite an . - _:;§='=-::.-'VV§_§:= , f .ggex'vktffi” '//// /
' ' . . Government President Scott 'mprovement. "\VV'VxV filth"? fir f) fi‘kxxhqu'i
. .' Wendelsdorf. But compared to what UK ( \"4? £335; 3.9;”- t" ’t ‘/“°~.;.~““'".t [i
, ' - Yet students made some real deserved and ShOUId have gotten ' a. C? i; h V’~his?5535553355553555555355553555‘: ’ t
.V V . . progress in improving the Code. A ltVlS a disappomtmentV. While some g ‘ . ) \\V-.:'.gir',,g;§,\ . . @ _V \\ l) i‘1:S;E3555353352;3:53§§E§3§E§55 \ , \.
» ' ' * major revision by Dean of 0t the trustees Viewed €3Ch \‘\x‘~ \‘§\ , \\\\\\\§\\\ ~ ) _3533515353i$$1§23§ V /,.
. 'V -, _ 'V Students Jack Hall that would proposal thh an Qpeh mmd and \ \}.\ \\\\\\\\\\§\C\\>§\f\\ .. 1—" / xiii-‘53:" '7 \\ i ’
n V_ ~ have destroyed the present J- dealt With them In good talth, s§\\§§\\\\\\v\s \ h" \
. _. - Board failed. Also the area of others it appears were deter- ' ,\\\\\\\\\§\\ ~ . ._ .
j V’ r' student records. which many felt mined from the. outset to, let . / ' \\\\ $53 / [a if" h %
. j ‘ ‘ . incorrectly was a dead issue, was students have as httle as P0551b1e~ . . . h h
‘. - ; ' = . ' - cleared UP- _The committee’s report along "Yes. we found your list of suggestions for code reviswns qu1te
.V' . _ -V Also of note was the com- With a manI‘lty report W111 go to I ‘ . . . ..
" V, V - mittee‘s promise to consider the Board to be deClded at the constructlre...and we were able to (lo a great many things with it.
. j . - ' again the Emergency Council and Apr” meeting. , ,
V: ., . one committee to submit all It the Emergency Counc11 15 -
- . ' future Code changes before the accepted before the next Board _ . . . KERNEL FOR 0
, g . . , V Board meeting March 21. meeting. And if the Board deCldes ' o t 8 re‘
1. , - Student success was due to put an end to the problems with . .
- 1 . . . .. .. t‘ h ‘ ff 1 l> e abo‘
.. . - ’ primarily to the logic and need of receivmg reViSions from several . . -(ac -mg “8- peohe a-verhged‘ I “(mud ”hr-1f” ones wer
. , V . . th d . _ d'ff r m d th . \Ustalolc comments surmise, distinctly inferior in educational pdrtttular ways.
V. . , V V9 propose reViSions. GVood _1 eVe sourceVsVan tau orizesa A r~ background i.) Kentucky’s student Themam point I would]
,. _ _ V . . - pi eparation aan presentation, smge 00":le ee 0 Prepat‘e Some Kernel and Kernel correspom assistants; but they had clockeda longer classes were tremendousl:
. . along thh IObbymgi was also an reViswns, t eh UK Students Wll . . , period of teaching. Some of these men and m“ 85 an undergraduate
, V . ._ . 1m 0 t t f t have made concrete ams dents comments 0i. he usefulness of ..
V . . V p I‘ an ac or. V g - , . . . . . . . women seemed to me then—and in have searched diligently
. V . Student failures wered t th But those are blg lfS and con- LiilverSity of Kent. y class instruction . . . . .
7 7 Board’s u l ' 't'ue 0f e siderin the ast histor of the inspires nostalgia. M; own college wasa ”‘tmspectstlhappear“averageteacners: ”h‘d‘hhdcy had my a‘
. . d b] t 8513 lmpOSI ion 0 a B d g d tph C d y small.poverty-stricken institution without somewere aaoove average; other were Otherwise. . . ..
_ . 0U Q-S an ard to all student oar an e V0 _e . we are many of the “modern conveniences .. The below average. Some of the superior ones Perhaps my ehg‘b‘hty f‘
V. proposals. Also it seems that hopeful but not optimistic. ' were inferior in some respects. Some asas uare steamsinamt
. 5 . quality of life; whereas the pro-abortion reform rather than to the anti-
. “humanists‘ “ chief concern is primarily abortionists.
‘V . ' ' with the quality of life. I challenge Dr. Nugent to either restate
-. . .. In summary, then, I feel that Dr. his position using the standard accepted
. ’ Nugent‘s editorial reasoning arbitrarily meaning or the labels he uses, or to
. . res Onse to u e n t separating on the abortion issue “liberals” redefine the words “liberalism" and In a recent art
1 . V V / from “humanists” is fallaciousV First, “humanism" so that a discussion may h‘etzer describe
_- _ . because he does not use the word “liberal" tathe off from common definitional starting Kentucky StuC
.. y - Dr. Nugent‘s Soapbox (March 7) entitled capacity for self-realization through in its normally used sense. Secondly, his pomt. porting legislatlt
.‘ . ' ‘ . “Abortion and the issue of rationality." I reasonf: use of “humanism" '5 so narrow that in its Tom antes m: galqure tokpt
h ‘ I feel deserves thought and comment. - ' - lull meaning it can be more properly < ~n-Ior SC oary wor s
. , VV Although briefly touching base on most of It is. therefore. clearVVthat those in applied to those who support abortion (ollegeofMedicme reappomtmentt
V V th V . . ; . V dl\lduals \\ ho do believe that there are seems to me th;
. \‘e ””9” thh’ahohh‘?“ arguments. Pr- grades of human life and that the vital Fetzer, and ot
.V . V V- Ugent 5 major theSisVVle that cheVabortIOh claims of the superior extinguish those of . legislation, ar
. . ,- . lsljilifnahifiizlzh‘es the liberals from the the inferior. an assumption implemented Th U h . misconceptions 5
. V~ . .. ; . . Briefly. Dr, Nugent feels that SuPport of hy force. are hot ‘ liberals. In his 8 nlve rSlt 8 Stem and the policies
.V ,_ VV V t . . V 'bo . . , .. arguments. Dr. Nugent must have been need to be clarlf
' . _“ . SSS ”5 “Ch‘h d rhOh lahh '5 liberal. using the label “liberal“ in a context not . V V
" ' 4 LnfortunVately he. never defines the word ordinarily used—at least not in any sense A system '5 an organization or people, resources, Moving on to further characteristics of the First, it is asst
V y - . out by rather circuitous logic places in recognized in a standard dictionary and procedures into a compartmentalized, university system- (I) ambiguity since most in- tend to be good
.‘ ' ' _ IUXtaPOSItlonthe termsthe“liberal‘s logic 0 th h h d D . ' hierarchial pattern. Its purpose is to more wasily d' 'd l - ' ' - h e
_ . . V of abortion“ . d “f . ., b , . n eot eVr an r. Nugent 5 use of _ . _ . lVl ua Sin that system are never qmte surew er chers, but not b(
, i _‘V. V .V . i, an . achism. _Ut 'm “humanism”isastrict construction of the handle whatever It ls. dhv‘shd for and 't ac— anything is or what can be done; (2) lethargy, this “either—or“
.‘ . . . V mtdiately c fers a disclaimer stating that definitional phrase ”worth of man .. His complishes this by speClalizatlon. which needs no since the system takes uite a while to respond to f 'l' -|
V , ' '10 doesn‘t bCllCVe that "liberals" W'hO stated belief is that “'hat i‘. life is What is comment. people and other; ' q ' t 65' (3) in- am arn‘l lar WI
- . ' , -' . *UPport abortions really are fascists. ‘ . ' ' h re i a s tem and it was - . unique Circums aVnc ’ - evaluations an
. ~ good. In the rather narrou sense he has Our "h'vhrS't¥ e s y s trlcacy, Since all procedures for domg anything complishments 01
. V While "0t defining the word. Dr. Nugent adopted an anti-abortion position on a deVised to 'dehhfy’ chaSSify, process, and validity th01V8 countless, precise, and ordered operations own department
._ V. . , . :loes imply an association between the “humanistic" definition of “humanism.” StUdentS Who hoe" ”5 t? th's ”‘Shh‘ht’h- Sheer specifically designated. And there is one last. im- the best teachers
_, , . VV , .. . chrm V“humanism” and his declaration Rather I feel that those of us who would numbers have compelled "to do thls for survival. portant. and overriding characteristic which, in are also product
V V . V V that in a matter of life or death we must make abortions more accessible have The lhhereht Spec'ahzahOh ,Of the unive