Los Angeles LOYOLAN
Vol. 48 — No. 14
^ LOYOLA-MARYMOUNT STUDENT PUBLICATION
April 26, 1971
Engineering
implements
Co-op Plan
By Sue Hoffman
The College of Engineering has
announced the Co-operative Engi¬
neering Plan, which it is hoped
will improve the relevancy of edu¬
cation while increasing class size.
In a Loyolan interivew, Dr.
James Foxworthy, Dean of the
College of Engineering, and Mr.
Thomas Hitter, Associate Dean,
who is mainly responsible for
the program’s presence on cam¬
pus, descussed the new program.
The Co-operative Engineering
Plan is a voluntary program in
which the junior or senior stu¬
dent alternates quarters of study
and employment in industry.
Practical work
Foxworthy hopes that practical
work will hot only provide an
early orientation to the profes¬
sional environment, but will also
increase understanding of class¬
room theory. He added that with
current economic problems, espe¬
cially in the engineering field, this
program would increase the
probability of getting a job after
graduation, though there is no ob¬
ligation on the part of either stu¬
dent
да
employer.
Foxworthy explained that the
student’s position would be one of
“fledgling engineer — his respon¬
sibilities being commensurate
with his abilities.” Possible jdbs
would be drawing, surveying or
simple calculations. According to
Ritter, firms offering to em¬
ploy Loyola students include the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the
City of Los Angeles, and the Envi¬
ronmental Protection Agency.
LINDA DRISCOL, EQOLOGY ACTION leader, stands in front of a
sculpture of metal that warns man of .possible- ecologiQaI’;<tevastation.
tion.
Fr. Kilp to direct new
policy on publication
Vacancies
Foxworthy emphasized that this
program will not interfere with
draft deferments or the California
Scholarship Program.
Another important reason for
the program’s implementation at
Loyola, according to Foxworthy,
is to fill vacancies in the upper
division classes, due to dropping
and flunking out. While the extra
year spent in school, called for by
the nature of the plan, might be a
deterrent to soipe, the program is
reaching for the junior college
transfers who enroll in the state
colleges because they are free,
Foxworthy explained.
He pointed out that the partici¬
pating student would make $500 a
month/ which should be enough to
pay his way through Loyola. Cur¬
rently there are eight to 10 junior
college transfers at the college.
Foxworthy hopes the program
will double that number. Other
students interested might be those
who have used up their finances
by their sophomore year or those
attracted at the incoming fresh¬
man level. Eventually, Foxworthy
hopes that 20% of the engineering
students will participate in the Co¬
op Program.
By Grover McKean
Fr. Merrifield has announced
some recent changes regarding
the university policy on alumni
publications. For some time he has
argued against different proposals
not because they were unfeasible
for financial or academic reasons
blit because our so-called “con¬
servative” alumni might not ap¬
prove. He has now bowed to this
pressure regarding alumni publi¬
cations.
Our alumni publications, it
seems, have become a little too
controversial under their present
stewardship. The Alumni Board
recommended that the publication
Loyola University Alumnus be put
under the Director of Alumni Re¬
lations, Fr. Kilp, so that they
might hear more of the kind of
thing they like, this means less
controversy and more soft sell
public reations.
Fr. Kilp, the Director of Alum¬
ni Relations, has been made
publisher of this publication so
that he might keep a tighter grip
on the contents of the publication.
Jesse Ray Brown, the present
Editor, will remain in his posi¬
tion; however, he will have to
clear his material with Fr. Kilp
in the future. Formerly, Fr. Mer¬
rifield had been the publisher,
giving Brown a more or less free
hand.
When it was suggested to Fr.
Merrifield that this move was tak¬
en to restrict the previous free¬
dom of the alumni publication, he
was quite candid about his feel¬
ings. In an interview with Rich¬
ard Schwartz an4 Mike Steed of
the Loyolan he commented, “I
don’t regard university publica¬
tions as free press” and, further,
“I’d be quite willing to restrict
free speech for a million dollars
in a given situation.” The infer¬
ence here being that the new set¬
up, which implies the threat of
censorship, will bring in new
money. Fr. Merrifield admitted
having been responsible for the
change, and indicated that Fr.
Kilp would have the full power of
censorship over the publication.
In an interview with Fr. Kilp, he
stated that the alumni publication
should have what he called “cer¬
tain built-in controls.” He felt that
(Continued on Page 2)
Future of student football
Ingebretsen to resign
after budget reduction
By Michael Steed
In a surprise move, Ed Inge¬
bretsen, director of Loyola Stu¬
dent Football, proposed a $20,077
cut in next year’s football budget.
Following this development, Inge¬
bretsen notified the Loyolan that
he would resign as soon as he
cleared his desk of all pertinent
material and appoint Dan Vistica
as interim director.
It was also learned during the
evening’s discussion that the De¬
velopment Office has subsidized
the football program by helping
with game programs and alumni
mailings.
The Board of Trustees failed to
reach a quorum so Mike Tra-
montin called a meeting of the
“Committee of the Whole.” Inge¬
bretsen opened his report with a
chastisement of those members of
the Board who were not in attend¬
ance. Ingebretsen noted that he
was “very disappointed with the
attendance.”
Commenting on his proposed
budget cuts, Ingebretsen said that
he “consulted with no one. I want¬
ed it to be my own. What the
Board of Trustees decides to do
with these proposals is their busi¬
ness, but I wanted to go on record
as trying to return the football
program to the students.”
Ingebretsen continued, “We are
just providing the basic essentials
to keep the football program go¬
ing as a student run program.”
Ingebretsen explained that pre¬
vious budgets had relied on out¬
side aid, However, he said, “un¬
fortunately, we dont have the
outside aid that we expected. In
many cases the alumni have
failed the program.”
On the student vote recently
taken Ingebretsen noted that the
“students voted for a program,
but didn’t vote for a way to fi¬
nance it. ’’Ingebretsen pointed out
“the program can
ш
longer sus¬
tain itself on dreams and illusions
of outside aid. We will field a
team as safe and as well equipped
as possible.” Dr. Alex Aloia,
Chairman of the Football Board
of Control, termed Ingebretsen’s
proposed budget, “a good report
that is the most realistic budget
presented in the 4 y2 years of the
program.” Aloia further criticized
the university administration for
their “disappointing” handling of
their position paper concerning
the recent football vote. Two days
before the football election which
was held a few weeks ago, the
university administration through
Coach Baker, issued a letter stat¬
ing that the university would not
take the program over. Vice-Pres¬
ident for Student Affairs Thomas
Scully responded by saying that
the Board’s criticism of the uni¬
versity’s position seemed to sug¬
gest a “cop-out” on the part of the
unfversity.
Scully pointed out that Mer¬
rifield had notified him that the
student services budget would
have to be maintained somewhere
near its present level. Concluding,
Scully said, “What it came down
to was to find a program within
the student services to kill for the
football program. And frankly,”
Scully commented, “no one on the
student affairs staff is interested
in finding a program to put to
death to have football come in.”
Despite this explanation, Ron
Fields, ASLU President, com¬
mented, “The one conclusion that
I come to is "that the university
pulled a nice smooth political
move that the students will not be
long to forget.” Coach Baker re¬
plied, “To my knowledge the
whole thing happened honestly.”
Additional information was sup¬
plied by Tom Dawson, a football
player, who shared with the
(Continued on Page 2)
ASLU hits development
on painted wall issue
By Mitch Rosplock
The ASLU Senate, in one of
their most dynamic policy making
moves of the year, voted unani¬
mously to pass a resolution to do¬
nate $250 to the Low Income
Scholarship Program and by so
doing, to exonerate any student of
financial responsibility for the de¬
facement of the development of¬
fice.
It was noted during last Sun¬
day’s meeting (April 18) that in
response to certain disciplinary
pressure placed on the party in¬
volved in the painting of the de¬
velopment building walls, many
senators felt the ASLU should
take action and formulate a policy
in regards to the situation.
Senators, upon learning that the
party involved faced extreme dis¬
ciplinary pressure and perhaps
even expulsion, unless the devel¬
opment office painting operation
is paid for by that party, felt it
necessary to take some stand on
the issue of the reason behind the
defacement of university walls.
Much debate led senators to
consider two ways of lifting the
financial burden from the stu¬
dents’ shoulders. Either the stu¬
dents could contribute $250 to the
painting project that the univer¬
sity was demanding or the Sena¬
tors could take a stand on the is¬
sue of why the walls were painted
in the first place (i.e., because of
development’s apparent delay of
(Continued on Page 2)
