★ EXTRA ★ The Crier ★ EXTRA ★
Volume IX — Extra	CORNING	COMMUNITY COLLEGE	April	13,	1970
Student Teach-in
Tuesday, April 14th
March 23, 1970, may go down in Corning Community College history as the beginning of a new era of campus awareness.
Interested students migrated from the Commons to the meeting of the Faculty Association taking place in the Classroom building.
Student went to the Faculty meeting because they were interested in specific campus issues—
The paramount purpose of student gov’t
I would like to take a few lines to explain a little about the purpose of Student Government, what it does, and how it functions.
The purpose of Student Government, as established, covers many areas. These areas include special committees to deal with new proposals such as the bus service, the stamp machine in the Commons, or the medical committee investigating the facilities. In addition to this, we had our student parallel committees working with the faculty committees on Ed. Policies, Arts & Convocations, Academic Standards, etc. In general, the student committees were weak in power from a lack of participation. A small group of people worked their asses off (gave up time on the books, and Frenicks) to make these committees go. Also, Student Government has worked with such projects as commencement and the publication of a Student Directory. While all this was going on, many responsible Board members were working many hours to improve our present constitution. The thing that impressed me so much through all of this is the ten or more hours a week people gave up to attend committee meetings and attempted to make CHANGES THAT WERE BENEFICIAL TO ALL, whether uninvolved or not.
After reviewing the situation, many of us felt that the possibility of improvement was possible—that’s the reason for the recent actions. In addition to this, some very vital issues surfaced, and in amazement, many of us found that people were concerned. What we are going to try to do is establish a form of government that will allow us to participate in major decisions while dealing with the mundane issues on a lower level.
On Tuesday, we will discuss this and we will also discuss 1) open door policy, 2) F grade, and 3) athletics at C.C.C. THIS WILL NOT BE A WASTE OF TIME FOR WE WILL DEAL WITH THE RELEVANT ISSUES AT C.C.C. Your participation is needed. If any of the points I mentioned effect you, come and voice your opinion, for your opinion is relevant.
the grading system, open enrollment and the proposal to censure certain faculty members. This meeting of students and faculty has resulted in a concerted effort by members of the administration, faculty and student body to reopen lines of communication and take a look at the existing structure of this institution, from the state to the student and to see where the system works, where it fails, and what can be done to improve the total experience at C.C.C.
Tomorrow has been set aside as a Convocation day. The whole day, beginning with a coffee hour at 9:30 a.m. in the gym, will be devoted to discussing the general structure of the college as a community.
Grading policy and open enrollment will be opened to discussion and a straw poll will be
by R. W. FREDERICK JR.
Unlike the private higher educational institutions, a complex and lengthy hierarchy of authority exists for New York State’s community colleges. In certain respects we are not unlike any other public agency with a stream of authority coming down from Albany and a reverse flow of accountability going up. A fundamental premise is made in any well-run system, namely that authority and decision making should rest at the lowest possible level where accountability and responsibility can be required. Theoretically, the state community college system follows this plan.
All authority for public institutions—be they schools, colleges, welfare departments, cities, highways — flows from the State’s Constitution. Unlike any other state, in New York education represents a fourth agency of state government, being constitutionally parallel to the executive, legislative and judicial wings of our representative system. All educational policy in New York State initially flows, then, from the Board of Regents which was constitutionally established in 1784. In addition to their direct supervisory responsibility over the lower school system, the Board of Regents is the overarching policy and coordinating body for all higher institutions in New York State. This domain includes the vast State University system with the community colleges.
Under the Board of Regents and established by law in 1948 we have the State University of New York (SUNY) which has its own Board of Trustees. When the Community College Law was enacted in 1950 it gave to the SUNY Trustees supervisory and budgetary authority over
taken to see how students really feel about these issues. Follow-up action will be planned.
This special edition of the CRIER has been published to present a general outline and background information for the events that are to take place tomorrow.
Approximate Schedule 9:30 a.m.—Coffee
10:00 a.m.—Existing legal structure of C.C.C. The Campus as a community Proposals for improvement of existing or new structure 12:30-2 p.m.—Break for lunch and scheduled Art Convocation in the Amphitheater 2 p.m.-4 p.m.—Specific issues (grading, enrollment, censure) and straw poll
the community colleges. Such authority includes overall philosophy as well as specific control over programs and curricula. Lengthy regulations promulgated by the SUNY Trustees proscribe operational patterns for the community colleges.
Unlike the integral units of SUNY—such as Brockport, Harpur, or Alfred Ag-Tech — the SUNY Board of Trustees does not have full authority or control over the community colleges. Such power is shared with a locally constituted Board of Trustees who have certain areas of responsibility delegated to them by State Law and SUNY Trustee regulations. To make the situation even more complex, superimposed between the SUNY and local boards of trustees are the various financial sponsors of the community colleges. In Coming’s case it is the local city school district. At the time of the formation of C.C.C. in 1956-7 only the City School District was willing to assume the responsibility of sponsorship. Without their encouragement and support this region of New York State would have been without a community college.
For the community colleges this complex arrangement is essential since on the one hand the community college by mandate and philosophy needs to be educationally responsive to local demands, yet on the other hand receives not only local tax support, but also one-third support from the State. The system is constructed so as to guarantee accountability and responsibility to those who are paying the bills both locally and statewide.
By law the local board of trustees has general authority over the operation of the college. Approval of programs, personnel policies, budgetary responsibility, discipline, plant development
Continued on page two
Governance of C.C.C.
Do You Care?
New college government proposals
PROPOSED COLLEGE STRUCTURE
Introduction
One of the major objectives of all teaching professionals is to promote a questioning attitude among students and to try to imbue students with those abilities, values and attitudes that will allow them to function as responsible adults and citizens. The events of the last several days on our own campus lead me to believe that, at last, we are beginning to fulfill those very objectives. If this is so, it’s time that students started being treated as responsible adults and afforded the rights and responsibilities normally associated with adulthood. Inherent in this is that they ought to at least be involved in deciding their own fates. It is in this spirit, then, that I would like to make a number of proposals concerning the decisionmaking process at this college.
Proposal
Since many decisions currently made by the student government are of interest only to students. I would suggest the retention of this body. If it’s ineffectual and irrelevant this is a student concern and of little interest to faculty or administration. By the same token, the Faculty Association deals with many problems which are of no concern to the students. Therefore, I suggest that it, too, be retained in its present form complete with all its policies and committees. However, its committees’ decisions are binding (unless challenged from the floor of the association on the meeting next following the committee’s meeting in which the decision was made). Therefore, I suggest that all decisions of committees or the Faculty Association be clearly spelling out in writing and distributed to Faculty Association members and all stu-
dents as well. How distribution to the student body is accomplished could be worked out by student government or some other such agency (one possibility is that faculty might be required to distribute these in class). This, then, would facilitate communications between students and professional staff.
This obviously leaves decision-making powers in the hands of the faculty. However, one means of reversing such decisions is already in existence. To spell this out, a faculty member may challenge the decision as it’s presented at the Faculty Association meeting (incidentally, the committee must present the decision in order for it to become effective). If there is a second to the challenge, discussion is in order and usually a vote ensures. Thus, the decision may be repealed or perhaps sent back to committee for further study,
I propose that a second means of reversing a committee decision be instituted. This could be accomplished by means of a student petition with 20 signatures which would be presented to the committee in question or Faculty Association within two weeks from the date that the written decision was distributed to the student body. Such petition would immediately place the decision in a state of limbo, In other words, the decision could not become policy until the following steps were taken:
1. An open meeting for all concerned would be held in order to discuss the issue and openly air the pros and cons.
2. After such meetings the student government would arrange for a student referendum on the issue and the results made public.
3. After the results of this referendum were known, the Faculty Association would vote on the issue and the results made public.
4. The issue would then be sent to a student-faculty committee where final resolution would be made and the decision would become immediately effective. This committee would operate as outlined below.
The Student-Faculty Committee
I. Function
The function of this committee would be solely to resolve issues brought to it as a result of a student petition containing 20 signatures. Its action would be immediate and binding.
II. Structure
The committee membership would consist of 10 student delegates to be elected or appointed as determined by the student government, and 10 faculty association members to be elected or appointed by the Faculty Association. At least one of the 10 faculty association members shall be the President of the College or a designated representative. Each member shall have one vote and voting shall always be by secret ballot. A quorum for any meeting shall be 20. In the event any member is absent for three consecutive meetings, he loses his membership and shall be replaced. All meetings should be announced at least two days in advance and the President or his designee is responsible for making such announcements and arranging for the meetings. In the event of a tie vote, the results of the student referendum shall be the tie-breaking factor. That is. if the student referendum shows a majority are in favor of repealing a decision and this committee votes 10-10. then the decision shall be repealed.
Notes
This proposal is not without flaws. Certainly it is a slow procedure but that may be beneficial. Also, the numbers involved, the structure of the committee, etc. are subject to change since they were arbitrarily determined. In short, this is simply a proposal which might be considered as a basis upon which to build a working
Board of Trustees—
Membership:	5 appointed by sponsor
4 appointed by governor college president (not vote)
Vice-president student senate duties: specified in N.Y.S. Community College Law —governing board of the college and approval of
Students
1 liberal arts student 1 physical education student 1 nursing student 1 math-science student 1 technology student 1 business student I.C.C. president publications representative chairman Commons Committee chairman students on faculty committees student association president
DUTIES: To enact policy when such affects the total college community and review existing procedures and policy. This executive board is empowered by the president to fulfill its function and delegate authority and responsibility as diagrammed. This is the board that convenes town meetings after due consideration or proper
Continued from page one
and maintenance. All of this “power,” however, comes under the broader authority of SUNY and the Board of Regents, with the sponsor also responsible for budgetary approvals.
Depending on the enlightenment of the local Board of Trustees, they can further delegate decision making authority and recommendation making to the president and, through the president, to the faculty. Corning Community College is blessed with such a board of trustees for they recognize that local educational policies should be determined—to the extent law and the abovedescribed hierarchy allow—by the professional staff of the college. Trustee by-laws set the stage with the president held accountable but with the faculty responsible for the formulation of basic educational and curricula policy.
Under the authority of Trustee by-laws a Faculty Association has been created which essentially delegates to the bulk of the professional staff of the college responsibility for the development of curricular, educational, cross-curricular, and disciplinary policies. The Association, through its committee structure, carries out this mission. Each major committee has a represent-
structure of faculty, administrators and students "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility.” etc.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon Muck
P S. If there are any questions regarding this proposal, I would be glad to discuss it with you.
college budget subject to rules and regulations of S.U.N.Y. '
College President-
appointed by board of trustees
duties: chief administrative officer of the college and directly responsible to the board of trustees.
College Executive Board membership:
Faculty and Administration
faculty assoc, president, clean of administration dean of faculty dean of students chairman/designate Ed. Pol. chairman/designate arts and convo. chairman/designate instr. resources . chairman/designate curriculum chairman/designate academic standards students activities director admissions director
petition by members of the college community. Town meetings primarily serve to
(1) impart information
(2) identify community opinion.
Submitted by: Paul Brandon, Dutch Pinkston Smith Murrin
tive from each of the eight instructional divisions, three faculty delegates elected at large and designees from the President, Dean of the
Faculty, and Dean of Students. Last spring the Association approved a policy whereby two student representatives, with vote, would also join each committee.
We will have an opportunity to explore together on April 14th the very essence of a democratically organized institution. Where have we succeeded and where have we failed? That participation is essential is unquestioned. How then do we establish a decision-making hierarchy within the necessary constraints of checks and balances?
More student voice
Specific proposal to solution of problem of giving students more voice in the decision-making process,
A. Faculty Committee structure improved through Student Government in so far as honest student representation.
B. Faculty Association News Letter to all students.
C. Faculty Council —• Student Government meetings to determine when policies, procedures, etc. fall into realm of overall student concern.
D. Faculty-Student hearings on issues.
E. Referendum (Voting Machine.)
by David Frank
decked at > large from student ass’n
Board of Trustees
President -
—FSA--

Judiciary Board
of Appeals
student
judiciary
faculty
judiciary
College Executive Board
Student Association

 Student Senate (30 members)
Faculty Association
Faculty Senate (30 members)
Standing
Committee
Ad Hoc
Committee
_Standing
r Committee

Ad Hoc
Committee
Students-on		Academic Standards
Faculty Committee		Ed. Policy
ICC		
		Curriculum
Commons Committee		Arts and Convocation
Publications		
		Instructional
		Resources
Governance of C.C.C.
page 2
the Crier/April 13, 1970
Proposed solutions for student problems
Change in grading system	Open	enrollment
All during the academic year 1968-69, the Educational Policies Committee was concerned with some change to the grading system by possibly adding the option for students of a Pass-Fail grade (Pass at the equivalent of C or better). No action was taken. Thus, at the start of the new academic year, 1969-70, the first order of business on September 16 was the appointment of an Ad-Hoc Committee on Grading, consist ing of Robert Finlay, Chairman, Richard Zweigen-haft, D. Nyberg, Jack Wills. The following is a summary of what has occurred since then: October 21: The Educational Policies Committee approved the philosophy of the Pass-Fail System and the Ad-Hoc Committee was charged with finding means for implementation as well as evaluating the present use of WF and INC. grades for consideration of possible changes.
November 17: The Ad Hoc Committee met and agreed on a new grading policy.
December 16: At the suggestion of Dean Chapman, and as approved by the Faculty Council, a joint meeting of Academic Standards and Educational Policies Committees was held as an overlap of responsibility for grading policy existed. At this meeting, the new proposal was presented to the joint committee as follows:
PROPOSED SYSTEM Letter Grade	Pass
A 4.0	P
A—	3.7	1	This	will 	indicate how
g I	j 3	2	many	times student has
_	'	taken	course without a
®	3.0	3	Pass	(C	or better)
B—	2.7	grade.
C+	2.3
C	2.0
INC W R
WP
X
NOTE: Under the proposed system there will be no D or F grades. At this meeting,
Newly proposed
Letter Grade	No. Grade	Quality Points
A +	97 to 100	5.0
A	93 to96	4.5
A—	90 to 92	4.0
B+	87 to 89	3.8
B	83 to 86	3.5
B—	80 to 82	3.0
C+	77 to 79	2.8
c	73 to 76	2.5
C—	70 to 72	2.0
D+	67 to 69	1.8
D	63 to 66	1.5
D—	60 to 62	1.0
N.C.—(no credit) did not meet minimum passing standards for course—-canot be used for degree credit — accumulated as no hours, no average toward grade point average.
I.N.C.—(Incomplete) did not complete course as as defined by course needs—This grade to remain on record until work is completed, or changed by instructor with specific time limit.
W.—Official withdraw from course during permissible period of that semester.
R.—In the event of official withdrawal from the college during a semester—this work to be applied by the registrar.
S.—Satisfactory for non-academic courses. •
X—This work can indicate an unofficial withdraw from a course during a semester if the awarding instructor feels the work is more appropriate than a N.C.
P—Pass in a passing situation.
Grade point average to be accumulated on a
1.0 through 5.0 system—-as outlined in preceding notice.
the D grade was restored, but returned to Ad Hoc Committee for additional consideration.
January 13: The joint Ad Hoc Committee met. February 24: The Academic Standards and Educational Policies Committee met jointly to consider the January 13 two-part proposal from the Ad Hoc Grading Committee. The Proposal was as follows:
I. A B C D *
INC Incomplete—To remain as such until changed by instructor.
W Official withdrawal from course during permissible period during the semester.
R
S
X
p
II. Same as I except for the addition of + (plus) and —(minus) to A through D. GPA to be computed as such.
At this meeting an amendment was made and passed to substitute the letter N for the asterisk.
Finally, the amended motion accepting Part I of this proposal was passed. Part II was not discussed.
March 23: This committee approved proposal was questioned from the floor of the Faculty Association meeting on this date. Before any action could be taken, representative of the student body spoke asking for further clarification and the Faculty Association voted to return the grading proposal to the Committee.
April 8: To date, no further action has been taken.
Submitted by Pauline Leveen, John Brennan, Chairmen Educational Policies and Academic Standards Committees
grading system
Minimum acceptable grade point average for graduation is 2,0—and candidate must meet all standards set forth by the college, department and curriculum.
A minimum of 24 accredited hours work must be completed during an academic year for a student to remain in full time status (minimum grade is D or 1.0 average). An academic year to be defined as two consecutive semesters of full time work (i.e. Fall through spring semester).
For the purpose of keeping the student informed of his academic standing, in its relevancy of transferring criteria — a student’s semester grade report shall be computed in the following method.
1. The official record of the course grades shall be computed under the proposed new grading system—this would be entered in the student’s official college transcripts. The student’s grade point average would be shown accordingly.
2, For the purpose of showing the need of a minimum grade point average, (as defined by 4 year colleges who use the grade of F), for those students who are anticipating transfer to a higher level of college education—the student’s copy of his grades for a semester will show the grade point average accumulated as already defined. All no credit grades will be considered as an F— these hours taken, but on quality points received—thus showing a grade point average that is realistic for purposes of transfer. This second grade point average is un-
continued on page four
by R. W. FREDERICK JR.
In community college education nothing seems to create more viable debate than the concept of open enrollment, or as it has been called, “open door admissions.” Essentially this concept suggests that for a particular clientele — normally the “service area” of the college—all who apply are guaranteed admission at the exclusion of those from outside the “service area.” In many states the exclusion is actually dictated by law or state legal administrative policies. Students who wish to migrate from one community college district to another are either restricted or need special approval. In New York State, for the present time at least, we have “free” migration.
The philosophy of open admission stems from the American dream of equal educational opportunity for all so that talent — either obvious or latent—would be given a chance to develop to the fullest extent possible. This admissions policy was in direct conflict with the inherited European tradition of an elitest educational establishment. Essentially the American response to an
informed and educated citizenry to run our democracy was to socialize the educational system. In the early part of the 20th century this process extended to the two year college with the development of the community college system in California. It was not until after the second world war with the influx of returning veterans and an increased demand for a more highly trained pool of manpower that the community college movement became nationwide.
The concept of open admission, therefore, is part of the reason for the existence of the community college. When Corning Community College was founded it followed this tradition. Open enrollment for local students has been a fundamental policy of this college since its inception. The policy was, however, restated in the Spring of 1967 to lend emphasis to the fact the C.C.C. had as a primary mission service to the commuting area which is roughly defined as a 30 mile distance from Corning . Most of Steuben County, all of Chemung County, the populated area of Schuyler County, and Waverly in Tioga County, all fall within this circle.
Until this year it was a fact that projected freshmen enrollment could never be completely filled by local students alone hence the college sought and accepted non-local students. This year from the initial crush of applications it appeared that next fall’s freshmen class might— for the first time—be filled with local students.
That C.C.C. is 	and 	will continue to operate on
an open admission is not a question open for a local decision. This is State Policy dictated by the Board of Regents and the S.U.N.Y. Trustees. If a bill currently before the Legislature is passed it will even be law—at least to the extent that not being on an open admissions basis will cut the college operating funds. That this president is philosophically committed to open admissions is also a fact. If the will of the people of the State wish a different mission for the Community College then it is at the Albany level where a reversal of the policy must be initiated.
The question that begs a solution is how, within the constraints discussed above, can C.C.C. preserve its very valuable cosmopolitan atmosphere ? This is not an impossible task, not with the creative energies of the faculty and student. It is one that need not go unresolved.
We, the Crier, wish to thank the faculty, student and administration for their co-operation in gathering information for this student special.
We, the Crier, also wish to urge the student body to participate fully in the student teach-in. Remember April 14 in the gym.
the Crier/April 13, 1970
page 3
Proposed solutions for student problems
Academic freedom and civil rights
by R. W. FREDERICK JR.
The right of faculty to speak out freely without fear of institutional censure on matters which relate (a) to their academic specialty and (b) to educational policy issues affecting their college has been the major thrust of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) since its organization in the early 20th century. In 1940 a formal statement on academic freedom and tenure was prepared by AAUP and has subsequently been endorsed by nearly eighty educational and professional organizations. Corning Community College subscribes to these principles.
The concept of academic freedom, however, is a two-edged sword. The 1940 Statement puts it this way:
The teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his subject but he should be careful not to introduce into his teaching controversial matter which has no relation to his subject.
The 1940 Statement goes on to suggest that when he speaks as a private citizen the teacher should also be
. . . free from institutional censorship or discipline, but his special position in the community imposes special obligations.
As a man of learning and an educational officer, he should remember that the public may judge his profession and his institution by his utterances.
In addition to the statement on academic freedom. AAUP also suggests fairly precise procedures for the censure—and dismissal—of a faculty member who allegedly violates the principle. The procedures for censure follow closely the concepts of “due process” guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. C.C.C. subscribes to this concept. Indeed, the By-Laws of the Board of Trustees outline in detail the process of a review board, a hearing, confronting witness, etc.
Much has occurred since 1940 including World War II, the cold war, the “first” McCarthy era, and now increased political activism on the part of both faculty and students. Both AAUP and the courts have kept pace in an effort to sustain academic freedom and the protection of the individual under the U. S. Constitution.
In 1956 AAUP issued a statement on “Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for National Security.” As with the earlier statement there is both an expression of the right to freedom as well as the obligation not to misuse the right. The following three quotes speak for themselves:
Without freedom to explore, to criticize existing institutions, to exchange ideas, and to advocate solutions to human problems, faculty members and students cannot perform their work, cannot maintain
their self-respect. Society suffers correspondingly.
The academic community has a duty to
defend society and itself from subversion of the educational process by dishonest tactics, including political conspiracies to deceive students	and lead them unwit-
tingly into acceptance of dogmas or false causes. Any member of the academic profession who has given reasonable evidence that he uses such tactics should be proceeded against forthwith, and should be expelled from his position if his guilt is established by rational procedure. Removal can be justified only on the ground established by evidence, of unfitness to teach because of incompetence, lack of scholarly objectivity or integrity, serious misuse of the classroom or of academic prestige, gross personal misconduct, or conscious participation in conspiracy against the government.
The Supreme Court has also been active in
protecting the rights of faculty and students. As stated in Terminiello vs. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute.
It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.
Justice-- Douglas and Brennan have also added that the principle of free speech “. . . does not mean that free speech can be used with impunity as an excuse to break up classrooms, to destroy the quiet and decorum of convocations, or to bar the constitutional privileges of others to meet together in matters of common concern.”
Lastly, the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 stated: First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.
It is clear that both the profession and the courts means to preserve the freedom of faculty and students to dissent. C.C.C.’s own code of conduct protect these rights and provide orderly procedures if there ever is an overstepping of these legitimate rights and freedoms of faculty and students.
Proposal brought to Faculty Association
Some members of the faculty have petitioned that the faculty vote, at the next meeting of the Faculty Association, on a “statement of position” regarding certain rights of faculty members and students at this institution which appear to have been violated on the recent occasion of a visit to our campus by IBM representatives. While in no way advocating restriction of the right to dissent, or to express an unpopular viewpoint, they do feel that it is essential that students and faculty alike adhere to the principle that “one man’s rights end where another’s begin.”
Specifically, the proposal is that the Faculty Association vote to affirm support of the following:
I, The RIGHT of a student seeking employment to interview with any legitimate employer of his own choosing, on this cam-
pus, without subjection to intimidation, harassment, interruption, or interference of any kind.
2. The RIGHT of students and faculty members alike to choose for themselves whether they want to avail themselves of the opportunity to hear the viewpoint of any individual or group. This would preclude the presentation of such viewpoints on such occasions as the lunch hour in the cafeteria, classrooms during scheduled classes there, and any form of “required” convocation.
3. While violation of individual rights on the part of students is extremely reprehensible, such action on the part of faculty members is intolerable. They feel, therefore, that such conduct on the part of a member of this body should be considered just cause for censure by the Faculty Association.
Result of Crier student reaction poll
The following poll was conducted previous to the proposed Student Teach In Tuesday, April 14. Submission of the poll in this special edition is not meant to be either pro or con. It is just a sample of opinions of some one hundred fifty students.
The main purpose was to find out where the students are at and we found the following:
The poll was designed for two main groups. Those within the four county area and others from outside the specified area.
We shall first deal with the results taken from the students in the four county area. Sixty-six individuals responded. Sixty-three said they fully understood the policy and the remaining three did not. When asked If they favored the policy, nine answered yes, fifty-three answered no, and four were undecided. Thirty-nine did know of the President’s conference, fifteen did not, and fourteen people did not answer. When asked how many were able to attend, thirty-three said yes, twenty-one said no, and fourteen had no answer.
There were no comments for those in favor but here are some of those that were against:
“I hope with the majority of students against
the policy that it will not be passed. I cannot picture Corning retaining its reputation with only the small towners attending. Diversity in personality and thinking is a roust to keep CCC as friendly and as open-minded as it is now.”
The second half of the poll was concerned with the students outside the four county area. Fifty-six people took the time to fill out the poll. Fifty-two said they fully understood the so-called “open door” policy and four did not. When asked if they were in favor only four said yes, forty-seven said no, and five had no answer. Forty-three were aware of the President’s conference, thirteen were not, but only twenty-four attended.
The comments in favor of the open door were as follows:
“Most kids who are bitching about it want the name of CCC to be good for them and then transfer. Let me remind them that this is a community college and not private school. If they don’t want to come	de	13-14,	have	them go
to Geneseo.”
The comments against the open door were as follows:
“I could have gone to Nassau Community College (Long Island), but I realized changing your environment is a part of learning: and growing up”
As previously stated, this article is not meant to be in any way biased on the whole. It is just the reflection of the comments of concerned students. The results could have been more comprehensive if more students had filled out the poll. The Crier wishes to thank those who filled out the polls.
Newly proposed system . ,
Continued from page three
official—it does not appear on student’s official college transcript. It is meant for information only.
ill be the responsibility of the student who is transferring to familiarize himself with
the following question:
What is the feeling of the college that the ' student is applying to as to the interpretation and disposition of a non-credit or X grade. If those grade appear on a student’s official record, how will these grades affect the student’s grade point average ?
Submitted by Smith ran with helpful opinions gained from: Dr. Robert Giuffrida, Prof. Pol	en,	Bob	Finlay
page 4
the Crier/April 13, 1970