ustxtxb_obs_1968_07_12_50_00005-00000_000.pdf

spent 30 years in the Texas legislature, with Sam Houston and Davy Crockett. Hardeman smiled happily as he listened to the words of praise, and when it was over, he cried, “Second reading!” The senators gave him a standing ovation. The West Texan was defeated by W. E. Snelson, a Midland advertising executive. Senators Reagan and Wade also were honored. Reagan will be replaced next session by liberal Rep. Ronald Bridges of Corpus Christi, Wade lost the .derriocratic nomination to Mike McKool, a liberal from Dallas, who faces a Republican opponent in November. ‘ K.N. Frank Erwin v. Law School Austin A’ rider in the state’s appropriation bill puts a ten percent limitation on out-ofstate enrollment at state-supported professional schoolS. The limitation is in effect only for one year, the life span of the appropriations bill. A grandfather clause in the bill exempts out-of-state students already approved for admission. So the rider is actually a little more than a warning to the state’s medical, dental and law schools that the legislature thinks qualified Texas students should be , admitted to Texas schools before non.’ resident students. The house-senate conference committee on appropriations established the enrolhnent ceiling as a compromise measure. Frank Erwin, Jr., chairman of the University of Texas board of , regents, dismayed by the number of out=bf-state students in the UT law school, had argued before legislative committees that tuition for non-residents should be tripled. \(He also urged doubling tuition for Texbill by Rep. Grant Jones of Abilene raising :out-of-state tuition to $600 a semester for a full load of courses, but the measure never came up for consideration in the senate. The. conference committee took out two riders inserted in the house bill at Erwin’s request which would have limited law school administrators’ authority to attract outstanding professors by offering them salary supplements. It also combined the law school appropriations with the rest of the UT-Austin budget, At the heart of the issue was a longstanding disagreement between W. Page Keeton, dean of the UT law school, and Erwin over law school policies. Erwin opposes the law school merit system under which students are admitted on the basis of college transcripts and grades on the law school admissions examination. The regents chairman has argued with Keeton and before the bOard that out-of-state students should not be admitted . as long as there are qualified instate students being rejected. This is the basis on whichhe supported a 10% ceiling on out-of-state law school enrollment and the tripling of tuition for out-of-state students. Erwin’s antipathy to ‘the law school goes deeper than the merit system of adtniv sion, however. He is equally concerned with the politics of law professors and of the students that they teach. Many of the school’s best-known teachers have been active in the Austin community and some have treaded on Erwin’s politically sensitive toes. For example, Alan Smith of’ the UT law school aided McCarthy forces at the Travis county Democratic convention in opposition to the favorite son candidacy of Gov. John . Connally, the man who appointed. Erwin to the board of regents. According to theAsso. elated Press, a reporter at the convention turned to Erwin and said, “Frank, isn’t that one of your boys?” “Yes,” Erwin answered. “He’s one of the bomb throwers we’ve got over at the law’ school.” The AP listed’ ‘other law professors Erwin has been reported to regard as radical. The list consisted of Dr. Joseph P. Witherspoon, who recently argued before the Austin city council that a policeman violated Texas law when he shot down two Camp Gary Job Corps boys who, were running from a stolen car; Parker C. Fielder, who -wrote , the Austin -fair housing ordinance; Roy M. Mersky, law librarian, who objected to a Christian cross made of lights in the windows of : Austin’s federal building last Christmas; George Schatzki, , an American Civil Liberties Union leader in Texas who wanted to limit the arming of campus police and argued that university rules on _student demonstrations should be rewritten to protect the constitutional right of free speech;: and Warren F. Schwartz, one of the signers of , a letter objecting to the regents’ rules on drugs. The AP’s. list could have been longer. It might have included Fred Cohen, known to his students as “Fred the Red,” because of his liberal politics, an author-, ity on criminal law who has given legal , advice to memb.ers , of the StUdents for a Democratic Society, and Joel Finer, a New Yorker who has aided LSD prophet Timothy Leary in his .defense against drug charges. Erwin’s antagonism toward the law school ,seemed to have reached an angry peak the evening before the special legislative session began. At a party he cornmented that the United States would be better off without the Harvard and Yale law ,schools and that the UT law school was better 30 years ago than it is today. A number of persons at the party told the Observer they heard Erwin say, “If Keeton gets in my way, I’ll break his back. ‘I could walk. into the Capitol press room and screw the’ law school tonight if ‘I wanted to’.” Law -students . present at the party compiled a record of Erwin’s comments that night and gave them to Dean Keeton. At ‘Erwin’s request, Rep. Bill Heatly of Paducah, the powerful chairman of the house appropriations committee, for the first time ever wrote separate line item appropriations for the law school rather than lumping its appropriation under the general heading of the University of .Tex , as at Austin. While the house bill raised. UT. salaries for fiscal 1969 by 6%, it froze law school .salaries at $669,000 ; the identical amount appropriated for fiscal 1968. Erwin also had two riders included in the house bill. One prohibited any line item in the law ‘school budget from being increased. “without prior approval of the governor.” The second prohibited any funds appropriated in the section dealing with higher education to be used for salary supplementation. It also’prohibited “salary supplementation from any , source without prior written approval of the governor with the advice of the legislative budget board.” The riders in effect gave the governor and the LBB veto .power over the hiring of taw fadulty rriernbers, The school has a $3 million foundation fund made up of contributions from former students and Other persons interested in Maintaining a high quality of teaching at the’: school. Dean Keeton Uses part: of the money, With approval of the university, president and the board of regents, to supplement outstanding professors’ ‘sal arieS. Withdut the supplementS the school might lose some of its best ‘then. EXplaining ‘ the riderS on the ‘house floor, Heatly implied ‘that Erwin was representing the board of regents in ‘mak .ing his requests. Attually, Erwin was act :ing alone. He had been unsticdessfUl in’. getting other regents to support his plans,’ for the law schbbl. Heatly told legislatori that the riders were ‘intended to set controls on state money. “The state doesn’t have anything to do with outside funds,” Heatly said.” He said the purpose of the proViSion was “just to see how much money is being :Paid under the table.” Rep. Bob ArmStriing, Austin, pointed out that the riders’ had a more far-reach ing effect than Heatly would adMit. “The’ governor and the LBB did not ask for this power,” Armstrong said. “The alum ni might’ as well give money direCtly , to the governor, and they aren’t going’ to give much that way.” ‘ “Is this the time to’ be Frank about: it?” Rep. Neil Caldwell of Angleton’ , punned; as he looked’ Up into the spec-‘ tator’s gallery ,where Erwin sat. Armstrong failed, 63 to 83, in ‘an at tempt to remove the riders. Although the measure was defeated, Speaker Ben Barnes assured the Austin representa-: tive that he would do what, he could to get the riders removed in Conference. , committee. July 12, ‘ 1968 5