Page 10


they will get lots of argument, and the rest of the citizens of San Antonio will hear some enlightening things. Says councilman Glenn Hartman, who regards C.O.P.S. as a productive force even though he does not always agree with its demands: “Those who claim [the city council is pursuing a policy of] no growth are patently incorrect. First of all, in terms of economic base, what can we lose? San Antonio already has the lowest breadwinner income level in the nation. What they [the developer group] call growth is actually displacement” The city needs growth, all right. Not unplanned, willy-nilly expansion, but its opposite. Still thirty-five to forty percent dependent on the military dollar, San Antonio is a place where the private sector of the economy has done little but say “we don’t want to bring in organized labor.” As a consequence, large wage differentials exist between government and private wages. There’s some irony in the fact that many of C.O.P.S.’ staunchest members are above normal intimidation because they are employed at Kelly Field or Fort Sam Houston. Current president Andres Sarabia, for example, is a computer programmer at Kelly. Beyond the January redistricting battle there’s no way to prophesy the future for C.O.P.S. or San Antonio. If the old power structure can’t succeed in neutralizing or seducing C.O.P.S., it will simply be forced to join it. Such an outcome might recall the fate of The Woodlawn Organization, in Chicago. Trained by Saul Alinsky to fight the establishment, TWO succeeded so well that it has become the establishmentand corrupt in its turn. When radicals reproached Alinsky for having failed to anticipate the effect of success on his organization, he always replied with a shrug, and the remark that the only thing that counted was whether the people themselves got what they went after. “It’s all there in the Federalist Papers,” he would say. “There are only two kinds of Americans. Either you believe in the peopleor you don’t. I do.” And that is Saul Alinsky’s Third Rule. Things have far to go before they reach the stage where Outs have become Ins in San Antonio. “Political sophistication here hasn’t reached puberty yet,” remarks councilman Hartman. “Maybe someday we can have a Bar Mitzvah.” El 10 The Texas Observer By Hoyt Purvis Austin Conflict over the proper role of the collegiate press has hit the normally calm campus of East Texas State University in Commerce. One of those involved in the controversy said, “The issues of the Sixties have finally come to ETSU.” Actually, the ETSU feud dramatizes the new dichotomy on American campuses of the late Seventies: between those who want to be involved in, or at least aware of what’s going on beyond the campus, and those who are primarily concerned with traditional collegiate activities. Student editors at ETSU were under fire from a segment of the student body for moving away from the customary emphasis on coverage of campus organizations. And, as is frequently the case, a college newspaper finds itself in trouble when administrators feel that the paper is threatening the school’s “image” with the business coin H. Ross McLerran Editor Danny Goddard munity, alumni, and influential supporters. As a result of action by ETSU President student publications has been turned over to a newly created University Press Council, replacing the Publications Committee, which formerly governed the publications and named editors. The Publications Committee was composed of editors of the four student publications; their faculty advisors; the United Students president; and Dean John Carrier of the College of Liberal and Fine Arts. The new UPC is composed of Dean Carrier; three journalism faculty members; four faculty members from other departments; and the president and vice president of the Students Association, plus seven additional students ‘recommended by the student president, and approved, like other members, by President McDowell. The creation of the UPC brought a strong reaction from the editors of the four student publications, who signed a front-page editorial in The East Texan, the student newspaper, calling the move “a threat to the future of a free student press on campus.” The editors said “If university administrators have their way, student special-interest groups and hand-picked faculty members will select their editors 9 9 The young journalists are particularly upset by the fact that they were not consulted about the decision. Not only do they view the administration’s action as heavy-handed, they are concerned about the amount of power granted to the student president. “Giving the USA president this power destroys the adversaryor watchdogrelationship between student government and the student press,” the editors said. East Texan Editor Danny Goddard sees the UPC as subject to domination by either the university president or the student president, or both. In any case, he sees the paper’s independence as severely limited. Further, Goddard, a senior from Klondike, is troubled by the reduced journalistic representation on the new governing body. The editors are not even ex officio members of the UPC. University administrators insist that the changes had long been contemplated. “There was long-term discussion,” said Dean Carrier. “It was not an abrupt attack.” The editors feel that it was a sudden move, precipitated by a series of incidents in recent monthsincidents which reflected the changing emphasis of The East Texan. The East Texan is a tabloid which is published twice a week. For years most of its coverage was devoted to campus activities, especially fraternities and sororities. Symbolic of the paper’s changing nature, and in line ‘with a trend which had hit many universities some years before, The East Texan dropped its “club notes” column early this year. That move was strongly criticized by the social organizations. Student paper