22 December 1970
Mr. crnest G. Peltz
TSC - Campus Unrest
Post Office Box 7265
Capitol Station
Albany, New York
Dear Mr. Peltz?
The Student Association of the State University of New
York, as you are probably aware, is engaging in a variety
of activities directed at improving the nature and quality
of hizher education in New York Statee
It would be most beneficial if you could provide us with
a copy of a resolution passed by the Henderson Commission
in October, 1970 concerning student activity fees.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Jan 0,Smolik
Acting Executive Director
/v¥
. %
anneal
Ernest G. Peltz
Temporary State Commission to
Study the Causes of Campus Unrest
P. 0. Box 7265
Capitol Station
Albany, New York 12224 / 4
ie
8 January 1971
Dear Mr. Peltz: oo t
\
}
\
|
{
|
RRR
—
Thank you for your prompt and courteous respon o our request of
12/22/70 in providing us with eoples.of the on's resolution
of 10/21/70 regarding student” attivity fees.
After reading it, we feek that therg kre several statements you have
made which require substantive suppert, and are dismayed in general by the
overall tenor of the statement.” .
It appears that thts resolution is highly inconsistent with both the
position of the Commission's first.teport of February 1970 and the overall
events on our é es in the ensuing period. Your first report was, in
genwral, a rational and reasonable approach to the problems of campus
unrest, especial considering the circumstances on this state's campuses
to which "The Ac in Turmoil" referred. However,,this resolution
seems tO suggest potential legislative interference in, or repression of,
the dasic rights of the students and their universities. This is highly
contradictory t6 your first report which leaned toward real democratization
pf} campuses) and genuine student self-determination of their own des-
t s. Also, /44 is curious that this resolution should come after a period
‘bhis s campuses have been freer from the truly destructive
forms of_unrést than in any period in the past three years. Does this
resolution signify a very different position by the Henderson Commission
than that which it previously held?
I feel it is necessary to call your attention to several statements in
the resolution which I feel require substantive support. While I am
aware of the many demands upon pour time, I would greatly appreciate
copies of staff studies or other supporting materials which substantiate
the following statements:
a oe
L4
Page 2 Mr. Peltz
1. "...4t is evident to this Commission that the mandatory Student
Activity Fees at the units of the State University, is an irritant
and underlying contributory cause to campus unrest..." I would be
interested in receiving both the empirical data which supports this
statement as well as a clarification of what is meant by "under-
lying contributory cause". (Perhaps this clarification is evident
in the research design which yielded the data. )
2. "...and this concern is seen as a continuing and growing campus
issue and cause of campus unrest..." Again here I would be inter-
ested in obtaining both the projective design I assume was used in
this study as well as the empirical results.
3. "...it 48 reported that student funds have_been diverted by methods
and for purposes which may be illegal, such as the support of groups
dedicated to the destruction, violence anarchy on the campuses
of universities and colleges of our State..." Again here I would be
interested in receiving the specific evidence which substantiates
this statement, as well as the-methodo used to insure the
veracity of said reports. oy
Finally, I mst take issue with the. 1 paragraph of the Commission's
resolution regarding the submission student budgets to referendums. At
best this position borders on total imadity, All I will ask is would the
New York State Legislature ~— the state budget to be put to a public
referendum? ‘
Thank you for your attention and what I am hoping will be a prompt and
complete response to my mahy. —
Sincerely,
seat et
\ \
Addrénd ai Susyonses to:
Street
Albany, New York 12207
(518) 434-4155
Jcs/r
CHARLES D. HENDERSON
CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS OF COMMISSSION
SENATORS
JOHN E. FLYNN
ALBERT B. LEWIS
EDWARD J. SPENO
JOHN E. FLYNN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM F. PASSANNANTE
SECRETARY
Ernest G. Peltz
ASSEMBLYMEN
CHARLES D. HENDERSON
WiLLiAM F. PABSANNANTE TEMPORARY STATE COMMISSION nest G. re
ALVIN M. SUCHIN TO STUDY THE CAUSES OF
APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR CAMPUS UNREST MAILING ADDRESS:
P. O. BOX 7265
CAPITOL STATION
ALBANY, N. Y. 12224
EDWARD F. CARPENTER
CARL H. PFORZHEIMER, JR. TEL. (518) 474-2950
EDWARD V. REGAN
January 13, 1971
Mr. Jan C. Smolik
Executive Director
S.A.S.U.
8 Elk Street .
Albany, New York 12207
Dear Jack:
I have your letter of January 8, 1971.
As you will recall, it was the practice of the
Commission, and it continues to be, that no information
is distributed to anyone prior to the publishing and
dissemination of the Report and/or the filing of that data
with the State Library on the completion of the Commission's
work. I feel that this had slipped your mind when you
wrote your request.
Of course, S.A.S.U. will receive a copy of the Report
through you as well as through the Council for the
organization.
Please stop in and see us in our new digs when you
have a chance.
Mr. Ernest G. Peltz
Temporary State Commission /
to Study the Causes of Campus Unrest _
P.O. Box 7265 C | |
Capitol Station |
Albany, New York }2224 La
3 February 1971 Sy
og ~
Dear Mr. Peltz, Ke )})
ae!
ur letter of January 13,
,. it was the practice of the
distributed ya Pen warre the publishing and dissemination
of the Report/ nd/or the filing of that data with the State
Library..." \ \
| |
I am guite ae of this practice, but it was also the public
position of 6 Commission and its chairman not 6@ make public
any positions, ‘report s resolutions, etc. without simultaneously
issuing the supporting data, and furthermore, a position of
always issuing the Supporting data with its public,reports,
tements, resolutions, etc. This, as I am sure you recognize,
be docum ed in many sources, including the transcripts of
th ublic rings (meetings), which the Commission held on
ber6,7,8,201Q0}, and 12, 1969. The omly exception to this
was, I bélieve, the Commission's avowed statement of "listen and
Therefore, I find both your resolution of 10/21/70 and the
statements made in your letter of 1/13/71 somewhat inconsistent
with this previous position. In view of this, I would hope that
you would reconsider the requests made in my letter of 1/8/71.
Thank you for your consideration of this extremely important matter.
Sincerely,
\
Jan C. Smolik, Ne"
Executive Director YN
STATE OF NEW YORK
| 7968
IN ASSEMBLY
May 22, 1971
Introduced by Committee on Rules—read once and referred to the
Committee on Rules
AN ACT
To amend chapter eleven hundred seventeen of the laws of
nineteen hundred sixty-nine, re-entitled by chapter nineteen
of the laws of nineteen hundred seventy ‘‘An act to create a
temporary state commission to study and investigate the
causes of unrest and violence on college campuses and in
secondary schools and making an appropriation for the
expenses of such commission’, in relation to extending the
powers of such commission and the time when it shall make
its report to the governor and the legislature
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:
—
Section 1. The title and section one of chapter eleven hundred
seventeen of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty-nine, re-entitled by
chapter nineteen of the laws of nineteen hundred seventy ‘“‘An act to
create a temporary state commission to study and investigate the causes of
unrest and violence on college campuses and in secondary schools and
making an appropriation for the expenses of such commission’’, and
section one thereof having been amended by chapter nineteen of the laws
of nineteen hundred seventy, are hereby amended to read, respectively, as
So ONY WD WN BP W LH
follows:
—
i=)
AN ACT to create a temporary state commission to study and
Explanation—Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.
Co ON DH PR W LH &
OW Ww NY KY NY HY ND ND
-~scSer anne osrtssypeer’anaurasaszs
investigate the causes of unrest and violence [on college campuses and in
secondary schools] ; to serve as conservator in constant surveillance of the
progress being made at all levels of education in eliminating the causes of
unrest and violence; to study subvention and accountability in all
educational institutions under the jurisdiction of the board of regents and
making an appropriation for the expenses of such commission.
Section 1. A temporary state commission to study and investigate the
causes of unrest and violence [on college campuses and in secondary
schools]; to serve as conservator in constant surveillance of the progress
being made at all levels of education in eliminating the causes of unrest
and violence, and to study subvention and accountability in all educational
institutions under the jurisdiction of the board of regents, is hereby
created. Such study and investigation shall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
(1) the manner in which incidents of riot and violence originated;
(2) the concern of students for changes in the structure of [our
institutions of higher education and secondary schools] all educational
institutions under the jurisdiction of the board of regents;
(3) the illegal acts intended to destroy, rather than reform [, our
university system and secondary school system] all educational institu-
tions under the jurisdiction of the board of regents;
(4) the proper role of administrators, faculty, alumni, students and
government in [the university system and secondary school system] all
educational institutions under the jurisdiction of the board of regents;
(5) the extent to which individuals and influences outside the
academic community contributed to such disorders; and
(6) the need for legislation to prevent the recurrence of student unrest
and violence.
§ 2. Section six of such chapter, as last amended by chapter one
hundred twenty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred seventy-one, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
YN HA vA ff WO WN
§ 6. The commission shall make a report of its findings and
recommendations covering needs, plans and programs to the governor and
the legislature on or before [February] March first, nineteen hundred
[seventy] seventy-two, and a further report on or before [April thirtieth]
March thirty-first, nineteen hundred [seventy-one] seventy-two. The
commission shall continue in existence until May [thirty-first] first,
nineteen hundred [seventy-one] seventy-two.
§ 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
ree yon Le LamMI} js) Qe
STUDENT ASSOCIATION
or THE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
@ ELK STREET
ALBANY, N. Y. 12207
(818) 434-4155
JAN C. SMOLIK
PETER K. ZIMMERMAN
CMAIRMAN
ROBERT Di NUNZIO
KXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN
MARK BORENSTEIN
TREASURER
EXECUTIVE OIRECTOR
RICHARD A. LIPPE
GENERAL COUNSEL
25 May 1971
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEWIDE STUDENT ASSOCIATION OPPOSES
CONTINUANCE OF THE HENDERSON COMMISSION
TO STUDY CAMPUS UNREST
The Student Association of the State University of New York
(SASU) stated its vehement objection today to Assembly Bill 7969
which would extend the Henderson Commission until May 1, 1972 at
a funding level of $150,000.
SASU's opposition centers upon two major points:
1. The lack of performance, failure to grasp the issues, and general
insensitivity of the Commission toward the problems of higher
education over the past year.
2. The simple question of fiscal priorities in respect to the need
to spend $150,000 of the taxpayers monies in a year when fin-
ancial cutbacks and economy have been bywords on Capitol Hill.
In respect to the first point SASU states it is incredible that
the Legislature and Governor would permit the continuation of a
Commission which is nearly three months late in issuing a report as
required in its previous enabling legislation. Without this report
it would seem impossible to make an intelligent decision as to the
specific areas (if any) needing further study and the justification for
such a study.
Throughout the series of hearings the Commission held this past year
it was obvious that the so-called stydy was directed at the symptoms
of campus unrest rather than the true causes.
Furthermore, in its own resolution of October 21, 1970 regarding
the relationship of campus unrest and alleged misuses of student
activity fees the Commission demonstrated a general insensitivity and failu~
to understand the issues of higher education today.
As to the second point, SASU contends that an expenditure of
$150,000 of the taxpayers money to continue studying a subject which,
has been an area already studied by a number of governmental agencies,
private organizations, and numerous independent researchers is a total
waste. SASU would suggest that the $150,000 be used to implement
the recommendations of the Commission's first report, open new
faculty positions in the State University or be spent in numerous
other areas offmuch higher priority.
Finally, SASU states the breadth of the charge included in this
bill is so general and repressive in tone that it has the, very real
potential of restricting academic freedom for all members of the
educational community and repressing their constitutionally guaranteed
civil rights.
Jan C. Smolik, Executive Director of SASU added that "it is this
very process of government which frequently pushes legislation through
in these hectic closing hours of the session that has had the
effect of turning many of our young people off to the governmental
processes as they now exist. For it is ae this time when the general
public cannot possibly respond to government, and frequently a time
when a plethora of commissions and committees are created without
real thought and often with overlapping powers. Also it appears
that too often these legislative concoctions ‘tend to become self-
perpetuating benefactors for political patronage angho- show Yobs."
Statement delivered to the Temporary State Commission to study
the causes of campus unrest (the Henderson Commission) FEB 4 1972
by Mark A. Borenstein, Chairman
Student Association of the State University of New York
Thank you for the opportunity to make a statement here today. I
am only sorry that the legislative proposals SASU is developing
are not ready for discussion.
I must also say that the opinions I express are mine, and are not
necessarily those of the organization's membership. I haven't had
much time to prepare for this and have had little time to consult
with many schools, so I've selected only three areas of concern
that are important and are of interest to me. They are:
The responsibility of the faculty in higher cducation,
The campus constituencies and their increasing adversity
towards one another,
Lastly, the issue of financing higher cducation.
I must admit, I'm not really sure of the scope of your concern; I
only hope my comments will be of some aid in the preparation of
your final report.
Firstly then, the responsibility of the faculty --
In early 1971, the Report of the Assembly of Goals and Governance
in Higher Education reported that:
“Teaching is still too little valued in too many colleges
and universities".
Along these same lines, it is sad indeed that the University Presi-
dent at the University Center in Buffalo reported that last year
ebout eight on-campus faculty members never saw a student. Uni-
versities are a conglomeration of many activities, but college
administrators and trustees must make clear the primary mission
of at least a public university -- that being the education of its
citizenry. Research, writing books, and other activities must
play subordinate roles to teaching. The “publish or perish"
Syndrome and the research syndrome, may be necessary evils for
faculty to earn distinction in their academic fields, but clearly
the primary responsibility of a faculty member must be to the
students of their institution.
And as the relationship between student and University becomes that
of consumer and seller (especially with increased tuition), then
the student must be accorded rights to evaluete and judge the
product he is purchasing. We applaud the recent action of the Board
of Higher Education in the City University of New York; with regards
to faculty and administrative tenure, appointments and reappoint-
ments, they resolved:
~
ae BEBE. “a Oe Bag 0,
wo Que
"That February 1, 1972 be held as the date beyond which no
recommendations for reappointment, tenure or promotion be
granted without evidence given to the Board of systematic
student evaluation, except in cases where the Chancellor
presents a cogent reason for further delay.”
Education works both ways -- student to teacher, and teacher to
student -- one is incomplete without the other. Faculty rank is
not sacred and meaningful student evaluation is necessary for |
better Higher education institutions. |
In the second area:
Clearly, there is no argument that the University has changed, and
clearly one of the fundamental changes in the governance of the
University has been the pwer relationships that exist at universi-
ties today.
The evolutionary process is interesting: in the university of the
early Renaissance, it was the student who established policy and
"ran the University". In the early 20th Century it seemed that
the Trustees and the Administrators at the top dictated policy,
and even more recently in the 50's and 60's it was the faculty
that sought and generally achieved power to determine policy.
The outgrowth of all this should be, in the typical American
tradition, a pluralistic policy-making arrangement with each
group sharing power; unfortunately, in the State University, this
is not the case.
SUNY schools have attempted to establish custom, campus-wide
governance systems that include all members of the university
community (for lack of a better word). Sure there have been
arguments as to the percentage makeup of representation of cach
constituency, but during the past three years, many SUNY units have
made a concerted effort to realize new, effective modes of campus
governance. Even the university Faculty-Senate, which is meeting
today, considered and is still considering (even though their
deliberations have taken three years) expanding into a University-
wide Senate, with representatives from student and administrative
groups in addition to the present Faculty groups.
But at most SUNY schools, the grind towards University-wide
governance was too long, too tedious, and too time-consuming.
Today, there is no pluralism; there is really no such thing as
a true University Community. Rather, there is a climate of
adversity -- with each constituency trying to destroy another, if
it perceives the result to be a benefit to itself.
Today, especially with the advent of the unionization of the
Faculty, and collective bargaining, it seems that all of the pero-
gatives of what was the Community, are now negotiable contract
items. And in the State University, the bargaining isn't even
between the parties involved at the University, but rather be-
tween the Faculty and the Office cf Employee Relations. Students
and administrators are effectively excluded from discussion of
many topics that are very much their concern and very much of
interest to them.
I can’t argue that faculty members should not have the protection
of a union. I can argue that it has caused an essential split in
the character of the university.
This condition has forced the other two constituencies to resort to
non-academic tactics too; when any two of the University groups sit
down to discuss a matter that mutually affects them (and this
doesn’t happen too often anymore), each group must have their
attorney present, and in the end, it is the attornies that argue
it out. Gone are the days of academicians sitting down and intelli-
gently discussing the reasonable alternatives and compromises for
their own University Community
No doubt, those “looking on the University" will say that the
Situation is simply a result of “human nature"; others would no
doubt say, that “that's the way the real world is". This may be
true, but if the country looks to its universities and certainly,
if President Kennedy was right when he called our Universities a
national treasure, then one should hope they would search for new
and creative forms of governance, for new ways to provide the
secure environment for faculty, students and staff, and for new
variations in the decision-making process. It is, I think, a sad
commentary that, at least in the governance of itself, the Univer-
Sity has failed. It is probably even sadder that within this con-
text, the faculty cof the university has chosen the most traditional
form of crganization, the Union, and this has relegated the Uni-
versity Community tc a "dog-eat-dog" existence.
Lastly, financing higher education:
In a recent edition of the Colleague, a monthly publication of the
State University at Buffalo (a state, rather than student-funded
publication), a series cf articles concerning change in higher
education appeared. One author commented:
"It was considered a privilige to attend the College of the
17th and 18th centuries and some still share thet traditional
philoscphy. Needless to say, such a philosophy is disturbing
because if society demands that we need education to be
successful in our vocational or professional lives, then
clearly an education must be considered a right for those
who can afford to accept the challenge."
Wes Carter,"The Abuse of Student
Freedoms", 1/27/72
I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that higher education is no
longer the privilige of a wealthy few, but rather the right of
every individual seeking to make the effort. This too must be the
contention of the People of the State of New York for they have
developed the largest University in the world serving upwards of
225,000 students alone; and this was done in slightly more than
20 years.
The unfortunate fact is however, that the solutions currently ad-
‘vanced to help the State University continue its progress almost all
+ tae 21, the
involve tapping students with higher tuition anc inercasec fees.
We must contend that this method is inconsistent with the ideal that
higher education is a right of all who seek it, ané furthermore, it
is an outrage to the students who attend, and more importantly, an
Outrage to the People of the State cf New York who have made such a
committment to “no-cost" or “low-cost” public institutions of
higher education.
We recognize that even with increased tuition, those families
| below the poverty level will receive assistance, should they choose
to pursue a college education. We are also assured that with any
increase in tuition rates, there would be an increase in the scholar
incentive program and the Regents schclarship programs. But, an
examination of each reveals that each is totally inadequate. Under
current rules, incentives can only cover a maximum of 50% of the
total tuition. Regents Scholarships received after competitive
examination are a little better, but current plans in the State
Education Department, call for a cut back in scholarships by
eliminating awards to Alternates.
for the other expenses of a college education. I suspect that few
people other than students and parents realize that even in private
universities, tuition rarely exceecs 50% of the cost cf that educa-
tion. The CUNY Commission on Admission reported that in 1969, it
estimated that City University students who are all commuters, must
have $2,000 to spend on school each academic year, and in CUNY
there is no tuition. And no doubt, today, these costs are higher.
|
And probably most importantly, neither of these programs grant aid
Public universitics in New York, all 80 some units, are a priority
item in the State of New York and now various committees and
commissions will recommend that e greater share of the cost should
be placea on the student of the family sending the student to
school. Put in another way, since assistance is more readily
available to the disadvantaged cr poer, once again the cost of
financing higher education will be placed in the hands of the
middle class ~~ a class of people, who especially in this economy,
can no longer afford to bear the burden. The Wagner Commission
notes that any tuition increase, “will put an increased burden
on miadle and upper middle income families”. Not only do they
pay a range of state taxes, probably a lottery ticket to support
education, and pay local schools taxes, they must also pay now
$550 for tuition, and then something like $2,000 for room, board,
transportation, living expenses, insurance, activity fees, college
fees, and bocks and supplies. Middle income students are ineligible
for great amounts of scholarship monies, so by and large the cost
is bourn by the famility. Increased tuiticn to levels of $900 or
more could place these families out of the educational market. If
their public universities require $3,000 or more a year to send a
child to college, where can these tax payers turn to? The same
institution that ten years ago had no tuiticn, the same institution
that they pay their taxes for, is now being denied them because
they simply can'+ afford to borrew or spend the cost. Is this the
freedom of access to higher ecucaticn that everyone in positions cf
responsibility is talking about? Even if the family can afford the
cost, is it right to expect them to spend that kind of money per
year con the schools their taxes support and most importantly, is
ete or
-
an additional $3,000 per year the sort of committment this state has
made to “low-cost" education? I hope not!
Taxing the middle class, and I consider tuition a tax, expecting
them to borrow to send their children to school, is not a rational
nor ethical way to finance the University. For a high priority
item, Higher Education seems to be getting a raw deal.
To add insult to all this, I'm told that there is no money -- anc
then I see Albany malls, wasted money in State Agencies, fraud and
inefficiency. The first questions is why? -- and when I'm told that
of the 100 wealthiest people in this country, about 50% didn't pay
any taxes at all last year, then the answer to the question, "Who
will pay for higher education", becomes, in the words of someone
we all know, perfectly clear.
No tuition is, to my mind, the most equitable, most fair anc most
consistent with the higher education goals of this state. It
would provide higher education to all who seck it (provided aid
is available for the other expenses), and would be a tremendous
step towards climinating inequality based on education.
There are other alternatives that should be explored -- a government
guaranteed "deferred tuition” plan, repayable as a percentaace of
future income for a specific number of years is one possibility.
This is a practical solution, but it side-steps the moral issue of
the responsibility of the State to provide an education to those
who seek it.
Chancellor Boyer commented after the last tuition increase (which’
was September, 1971):
"The State University is fully committee to a policy of
low-cost public education. With a generous. scholarship
program, no needy student will be denied the opportunity
to study because of financial harcship."
I'm not sure this goal has been realized, and certainly without a
complete re-cvaluation of the fundamental sources of public higher
education financing, another increase will just out price “low-cost"
public education.
Unfortunately, the prediction in another portion of the Wagner
Commission Report has proved true -- it stated “a tuition charge
at a public college, no matter how low, invites political pressure
to raise it.”
And lastly, if I may add, increasing tuition is not the panacea for
ending the financial problems of public higher education.
CONCLUSION:
I've only touched on three problems in the State University -- one
isn't even a problem, but a fait accompli -- unions are here to stay.
But problems are many in SUNY: the second class status of students
(there is a university faculty senate, but no university stucent
-6-
senate), the inequalities among the various SUNY units, the lack
of clarity as to where responsibility for decisions lies, just to
name a few more.
I believe that the first step towards solvina the problems is
discussion and education. In this vein, at the end of this month
SASU will sponsor a legislative conference here in Albany. All
the members and staff of this commission have been invitee to
attenc and mect formally and informally with student leaders from
arounc the state.
The membership of SASU will also approve a serics of legislative
anc trustee proposals, that will attack and offer alternatives to
the problems of our University. I will be happy to forward a copy
of these proposals to the Commission for their reviow.
I only hope you can take the time to attend our meeting, to help
both groups, who so infrequently talk with cach other, understand
each other a little better.
Thank you.
STUDENT ASSOCIATION
OF THE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
3 WEST NORTHRUP AVENUE
BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14214
(716) 831-3735
‘an 4. BORENSTEIN RICHARD A. LIPPE
=. IAN GENERAL COUNS ©.
JER A ‘SON
EXEC TIVE VICE CHAIRMAN
PHiL Ov SSSCHATE
TREASURER
June 28, 1972
Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller
Governor, State of New York
Executive Chambers
State Capitol Building
Albany, New York 12224
Dear Governor Pockefeller:
The Student Association of the State University of New York Inc.,
(SASU) announced in March 1972 as a part of its Legislative Pro-
posals:;:
"SASU believes that it is both necessary and
desirable to create a permanent body to be
chargea with the responsibility of evaluating
a) governance systems that currently exist at
public and private universities and b) the
desiplinary procedures presently in effect at
these schools. |
We feel that the Temporary State Commission to
Study the Causes of Campus Unrest (The Henderson
Commission) has served as a constructive force
in the effort to improve the State's system of
higher education. We think that this group
currently offers the best legislative mechanism
by which an ongoing review of the problems dis-
cussec above can be achieved, and therefore SASU
Supports the continuance of the Commission.
It is hoped that the name, scope, and composition
can be modified to reflect a revised mission.
The emphasis should not be on campus and student
unrest, but on the evaluation of modes of govern-
ance systems of internal judicial and grievance
redress. In addition, SASU urges that the compo-
sition of the Commission be expanded to include
more members of the various University constituencies, “
~ Stated in the last sentence of our position, SASU hopes that the
composition of the Temporary Commission will be more representative
of the various University constituencies. Due to Mr. Edward Reagan's
|
June 28, 1972 .
Honorable Nelson A, Rockefeller, Continued
resignation, last year from the Commission, there is currently one
vacancy left unfilled by your office,
ft is SASU's hope that you consider a student to fill this position,
We are certain that a responsible student could do much to further
the goals of the Henderson Commission in order to improve higher
education in New York,
increasingly turn to one of the States' vast untapped resources, the
studeht. SASU would be more than glad, in cooperation with your office
and the Commission, to help in the search for possible candidates for
this position. I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Borenstein
Chariman
ccs Mr, Charles Henderson
MAB /1ixr
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0