1972-09-20; Central Michigan Life

              M^„Jli.J5E;T'_vS.
foiume 53, Number 10
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858
September 20, 1972
nquify system
o
me new
Central policy
By Dale Malewska
LIFE Staff Writer
igse, of a recent communication
I-President's Council to ail
ty offices, a new "privacy policy".
initiated atv Central,
irding to Charles B. House, any
ators requesting information
g to students, staff and* faculty
eferred to University Attorney
;rr. Kerr will then check out the
tors' credentials before assisting .
obtaining desired information.
estigators from   various   public
Jiave come to Central seeking
ion. Occassionally the requested
ion is of a privileged nature or the
could be termed an invasion of
said House.
ne of the inquiries related to
in which the University lias
ing legal concerns; , thejceiore,
such as insurance, .^ccidents,^
mployment opportunity, civil
•acial discrimination, libel and
vill be referred to Mr. Kerr," he
House said, "We want to furnish
these agencies with the information they
need and are entitled to have, but we wanl
to protect the privacy of individuals." He
continued, "University offices are being
alerted to be sensitive to the kinds oi
information they are being asked to give
out."
House described the types of information that investigators may Feceive
concerning students, faculty and' staff.
Public information consists of such items
as name, address and home address.
He said that even these items arc
being challenged by students who claim
these public lists leave students and their
parents open for mailing lists and fake
insurance games.
Describing personal or privileged
information, House said that such items as
health and academic records will not be
shown to anyone or released without a
court supedna or a signed student release.
this: new privacy policy is the Health
Serivce, as it wil. continue its own Strict
policy on the release of health records," he
concluded.       , . J
SHE'S A CMU ALUMNUS— Mdrge Griffin met with students in and outside the
University Center yesterday. Campaigning for her husband, Sen. Robert Gri,
f viva   -a.*/
r
.Mich., her discussion centered around political questions; usually on whether or not
her husband supported the administration.
Resolution approval urged
adoption of political-campaign regulations by
«MJty has led the newly, formed CMU Rights
Efcissue a resolutiorsdallFng for revision'of the
it, ,-■-■•
coalition, chaired by Casey Ropers of the
.socialists Alliance, is eomnrised of
itatives of campus Republican, Democratic,
jent and Socialist parties.
»snts opposed to ~ the official campaign
fn*~met,last Thursday:to form, the coalition
Shstofight the mandatory use'of the policy.
op«n.g to Charles B. House, assistant to the
jt, the primary reason for the regulations was
-able concentration of voters on campus
I from the lowered voting age.
J need to create ground rules that would
Hudents to get as fully as possible the incoming in the course of the political cam-
House said.
J>me members of the coalition .stated the
W has had- problems with political cam-
' f the past and is afraid of politicians who
"Wst treatment by various  University  af-
members believe parts of the
n»St0 be unconstitutional. They are seeking
«ey from the American Civil Liberties Union
" an injunction against the University for
fm; policy.
^oalition's resolution reads as follows:
?e*; 21, 1970, the United States Supreme
ini__i^I »• ■ _.. — - *     *
PHeidthe
constitutionality of a law passed by
fedeJlfnT °* ^ "yeia% which extended suf-
hm        ctions to young men and women 18
he*j!rancftisement of more than il million
^ri *7aal an  JmP°rtant victory  for  the
<ihU  *?f ^'American people
to
fight regulations
. These significant extensions of our democratic
rights, we believe, were .not simply handed down to us
by the generosity of-the courts and~legisla$,ures, but
reflect the tremendous weight and impact of the new
awareness and politicalization of young people which
has developed in the last decade,
-Despite these gains and extensions of our basic
democratic rights the administration of CMU has
attempted to inhibit, if not outrightly repress the
implementation of these democratic rights of students
with a set of regulations regarding student participation in democratic political activities.
Numerous,University administrations throughout
• the country have recently enacted new. regulations
governing and restricting the .constitutional rights of
students and ail citizens to freely engage in political
campaigning and free exhange of their political ideas
on the campuses.
Shockingly and. unfortunately, Central Michigan
University has become the latest example of such
undemocratic regulations.
On Sept. 5 of this year, President William B. Boyd
signed a document..which not only threatens the
freedom^of CMU students and faculty, but also
seriously limits the desired educational goal of having
students - well informed concerning the . American
political processes, and in fact this document violates
the consitutional rights of the entire CMU-Mt.
Pleasant community.
The document is entitled "Regulations Pertaining
to Political Campaigning at Central Michigan
University." It states that these" regulations are
formed! by certain assumptions, such as "informed
political participation is a necessary element in our
country's democratic processes." And, "Participation
in the on-going political discussions and processed by
students at a university is a desirable  education
re!l«£0- the Supreme Court decision many
function and goal."
Nevertheless,,the tone throughout this document
and most of the actual points of regulation fly in the
%*!6l" 1?.wered the .voting age to 18 for state
ft iWiWA
Many of these regulations inhibit, limit" or in some
instances deny our democratic right of free expression;" when they state for" example, that:   ■
"No. . . materials of a political nature, including
any campaign materials, comments about candidates,
etc. .     may be placed on... bulletin boards.
"There shall be no signs, stickers, posters or any
•   other campaign or political material placed in any
puuuC areas on t..o-campus.
And in direct contradition to the,Bill of Rights,
■ this document prohibits the passing out of leaflets
with the only  exception  of allowing them" to  be
placed—not handed  out—in University  designated
areas.
The document warns, "Infraction of any of these
regulations may result in appropriate discipline." One
wonders what- the appropriate disciplinary action
might be Welted out to those students who may
exercise their constitutional rights.
Why is ajSuniversity community where nearly
15,000 men and women live and work most of the year
not to be permitted the freest possible, expression of
political opinion as all other American communities
are? Why in an acacleliiic: setting must, there be curtailment of the free flow of ideas and opinions; ideas
and opinions which at this time of the enfranchisment ta
of most of the student population in an election year
are of the utmost importance?
Are we to permit this denial of our most basic and
fundamental democratic rights? Can we-in all good
conscience allow this to. gOtUnchallengedf
i We urge all students and faculty to support) lis in
opposing this arbitrary and unjust ruling.   ■
CMU Rights Coalition:
Casey- Ropers—representative from Young Socialist
Alliance .■._■ <
Mitch  Gross—representative  from  the  Democratic
Party
Tim. Powers—representative from the Independent
Party
Steve England—representative from the Republican
Party -
-.-""SO