Los Angeles LOYOLAN
r ,,n
ШШ
Vo!. 48 — No. 15
A LOYOLA-MARYMOUNT STUDENT PUBLICATION
May 17, 1971
Affiliation discussion
sparked by agenda item
By Payne and Croft
A recent suggestion by a ten¬
ured Loyola faculty member that
the College of Arts and Sciences
bee ome
со
- educational has
prompted rediscussion of the affi¬
liation.
At last week’s meeting of the
Loyola-Marymount chapter of the
Association of American Univer¬
sity Professors, (AAUP), the co¬
educational status of the two
schools was" to be discussed but
was removed from the agenda at
the last moment.
Dr. Aloia, AAUP President, ex¬
plained that he had written Sr.
Raymunle McKay, RSHM, Presi¬
dent of Marymount College, and
Rev. Donald P. Merrifield, S.J.,
President of Loyola, asking for
their approval of such a dis¬
cussion.
ducational program in the College
of Arts and Sciences Loyola shall
give due consideration to the suc¬
cess of Marymount College in
achieving its portion of the offi¬
cially adopted coordinate enroll¬
ment goals for this college.
“Marymount has stated that it
anticipates an enrollment on the
Westchester Campus of 750-800 by
1072. Loyola expects to have 1,450
men in the College of Arts and
Sciences by 1972. If the affiliation
starts on the Westchester Campus
in 1938, then it- would be reason¬
able to expect Marymount to have
an enrollment of approximately
750 by 1973 and Loyola’s College
of Arts and Sciences to have an
enrollment of approximately 1,450
by 1973.
Rev. Donald P. Merrifield, University President, according to Jauquin Acosta, special assistant to the
president, backs Acosta in not allowing the Loyolan to publish financial information.
Budgetary matters
Acosta threatens Loyolan editor
He then read a letter from
McKay stating that the adminis¬
trations of both schools were giv¬
ing adequate attention to the
problem, and that there was no
need for discussion on a faculty
level. She also made a reference
to the Seal Beach Conference and
pointed out that many of the prob¬
lems had been solved there. Mer¬
rifield didn’t reply to Aloia’s
request Aloia said.
The idea that Loyola’s College
of Arts and Sciences become co¬
educational is not new. In the
“Memorandum of Agreement”
signed between Loyola University
and Marymount College on Octo¬
ber 15, 1966, a provision for the
co-educational status of Loyola-
Marymount was agreed upon.
Section XVI states that, “It is
understood that the entering upon
the coordinate agreement shall
place no limit on the future right
of Loyola University to embark
upon a full coeducational program
in all departments and colleges
and to add new programs for
women such as a combined nurs¬
es training program.
“However, it is also understood
that before embarking up on a coe-
“The progress toward these
goals will be reviewed every two
years- If Marymount does not
leash the same percentage of its
projected increase as Loyola’s
College of Arts and Sciences
does by 1973, Loyola’s College
of Arts anl Sciences would be
free to establish its own program
of coeducation in addition to
Marymount’s program, on the
condition that Loyola not accept
any transfer students from Mary¬
mount.”
According to this provision,
Loyola cannot establish its own
program in the College of Arts
a nd Sciences since Marymount
has already attained its 1973 goal
of 750 students.
However, the first sentence of
the clause reads: “It is the pur¬
pose of this agreement to assist
both Loyola and Marymount to
achieve their full growth poten¬
tial. The execution of this agree¬
ment shall not operate to inhibit
such achievement by either insti¬
tution.”
“Growth potential” can be in¬
terpreted as cultural, academic
(Continued on page 2)
In a discussion with Loyolan
Editor Richard Scrwaltz, Joa¬
quin Acosta, Special Assistant to
the President of Loyola Univer¬
sity, threatened the Loyolan with
serious consequences if it pub¬
lished documents on University fi¬
nances.
Acosta prefaced the discussion
by saying 4hat he was speaking
for Rev. Donald P. Merrifield,
S.J., University President.
The documents were given to
the Loyolan by sources within the
university community. They com¬
prised an incomplete but substan¬
tial record of University expenses
for the fiscal year 1969-70, in¬
cluding a breakdown by academic
departments,
During the May 11 meeting, Ac-
costa stated repeatedly that “If
the Loyolan prints that informa¬
tion, it will have to face the con¬
sequences, which will include a
very critical review of its budget,
a re-evaluation of the positions of
the Loyolan and the Hill, and the
moderator oLthe Loyolan.”
Further, Acosta said that “The
Loyolan will have to face the pos¬
sibility of legal action on the part
of the University,” since the
information was not obtained
“through normal channels.”
Publication of the financial
data, Acosta said, would “pola¬
rize the university community.”
Since that would be the case, he
continued, the members of the
University Budget Committee
might well be moved to critically
reconsider the Loyolan’s budget,
which is now before the Com¬
mittee.
The President, Acosta * said,
would accept the recommendation
of the Budget Committee.
Acosta’s comments came after
Merrifield had been notified by
the Loyolan that the financial in¬
formation would be published.
That notification, in turn, fol¬
lowed an earlier meeting with
both Merrifield and Acosta,
in which they advised represent¬
atives of the Loyolan not to print
the information, on the grounds
that it was incomplete and would
create dissension within the uni¬
versity community.
At that meeting, held several
weeks earlier, Merrifield told
Loyolan reporters that he would
give them complete financial in¬
formation as soon as it became
available to him. At present the
data was awaiting computer pro¬
gramming, he said.
Student sources noted, however,
that Merrifield had agreed to re-
By Mitch Rosplock
Voting discrepancies, election
procedures, stray ballots, and a
general lack of interest by the
student body proved to be the
major weaknesses of the first
election of the board of governors
for the new constitution of the
Associated Students of Loyola-
Marymount. The election itself
had one of the worst records for
voter turnout ever recorded in
the Del Rey campus’ history.
On the basis of a 100 word state¬
ment per candidate, found in an
election pamphlet distributed and
published by a governmental con¬
trol committee, and on the cri¬
teria of a handshake, door to door
campaign, approximately 20% of
the students body turned out to
vote for candidates who will be
vital to the new governmental
structure which will be handling a
budget of close to $100,000 begin¬
ning June 1 of this year.
lease a departmental breakdown
as early as last Fall, but that he
had postponed the promised re¬
lease of the date indefinitely.
In the meeting with Acosta,
several weeks later, Acosta in¬
dicated that Merrifield had still
not received the information, and
that it would not be available in
the immediate future.
Merrifield will offer a report on
the financial aspects of the Uni¬
versity in an “Administrative Fo¬
rum” to be held May 24, Accosta
said. However, he added that the
information released by Mer¬
rifield at that time would not nec¬
essarily include a departmental
breakdown of expenses.
In a Loyolan interview, Mike
Frym, election chairman and the
only member of the election com¬
mittee, indicated that the election,
in a sense, had been “rushed” to
meet constitutional deadlines
stipulating that elections must be
held by May 10 of the Spring
quarter. Frym noted that despite
postponements last year of that
date, the situation of a new, in¬
coming government this year re¬
quired the election to be held as
soon as possible.
Many critics of the election felt
that campaign speeches and pub¬
licity for candidate signups and
the date of the election itself were
not properly publicized. Many stu¬
dents did not even know that there
was an election going on.
Frym stated that there could
have been more speeches had
there been more time. He also
noted that this year’s election
(Continued on Page 2)
Joaquin Acosta
Election results spark
criticism, controversy
