he Battalion
Serving the Texas A&M University community
USPS 045 360
Phone 845-2611
The Weather
Tomorrow
Today
High
80 High
75
Low
63 Low
56
Chance of rain.
20% Chance of rain. . . .
. . . 20%
Female cadet testifies
in discrimination suit
Help at hand
Staff photo by Chuck Chapman
An unidentified cyclist seems to be in no pain
Wednesday afternoon even though he is riding
with a broken leg. His crutch is close at hand.
By BELINDA McCOY
Battalion StafF
A sex discrimination suit filed in 1979
by former Texas A&M cadet Melanie
Zentgraf against the University is
undergoing preliminary proceedings in
federal court in Houston, James Bond,
University attorney, said.
Four female cadets voluntarily
accompanied Bond to Houston for the
preliminary proceedings, but Bond said
only one — cadet Janet Larsen from
Squadron 14, Zentgraf s former outfit —
actually testified in the case.
The others were prepared to give
testimony, Bond said, but they did not
have to do it.
Zentgraf, a 1980 graduate, filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of herself
and other female cadets at Texas A&M
on charges that federal and state statu
tory and constitutional provisions are
violated when women are excluded
from several Corps-affiliated organiza
tions.
In a class-action suit, one member of
a group (Zentgraf) is viewed in the case
as being representative of a whole group
(the female members of the Corps of
Cadets).
District Judge Ross Stirling did not
feel that it vyas necessary to hear testi
mony from the other three cadets, Bond
said, because the testimonies would be
so similar. The purpose of the proceed
ings is merely to determine if the law
suit can be considered class-action.
The cadets were prepared to testify
that Zentgraf was not representative
enough of the women in the Corps to
bring a class-action lawsuit.
The four cadets went to the federal
court proceedings for two reasons, he
said: “To indicate that Melanie would
not be a proper person to represent the
Corps, ” and also “They would not want
to be part of a class-action suit. ”
Cadet Mary Stubbard from Company
W-l said the four female cadets decided
to go to Houston after one of them
volunteered to Bond. That cadet —
whose name Stubbard did not reveal —
then talked to the other three and they
decided to testify on behalf of the Uni
versity.
“It’s a class-action lawsuit, and I don’t
want to be included,’’ Stubbard said. “I
just told them my side. ”
Cadet Dawn Daniels, who also went
to Houston to testify in the proceedings,
refused to comment on the case, saying
that she feels such action would cause
disruption in the women’s outfits.
“We re trying to resolve everything.
... Things were going along real well
until she filed this lawsuit,” Daniels
said. “It really is a touchy subject with
us.”
Stubbard said that she knew of no
disruption that the suit has caused in the
women’s outfits.
“We don’t even talk about it,” she
said.
Larsen and cadet Doriot Mascarich
from Company W-l refused to com
ment on their appearance in the federal
court.
A trial date for the suit will probably
be set within six months, Bond said.
Named as defendants in the original
suit were: Texas A&M University; Dr.
Jarvis E. Miller, former Texas A&M
president; Dr. John J. Koldus, vice
president for student services; Col.
James R. Woodall, commandant of the
Corps; and Robert J. Kamensky, 1978-
79 Corps commander.
Since the suit was filed, however,
Woodall has been dropped as a defen
dant. The Justice Department would
have had to defend Woodall, since he is
a federal employee. But the department
arranged to have Woodall’s name drop
ped in the suit, so that it would be free
to intervene on Zentgraf s behalf.
Those organizations which the suit
names as discriminatory are the Ross
Volunteers, Parsons’ Mounted Cavalry,
which has since allowed women to join,
the Aggie Band, Rudder’s Rangers, the
Fish Drill Team and the Brigade Color
Guard.
Zentgraf is now stationed at Reese
Air Force Base in Lubbock. Even
though the suit was filed two years ago
and Zentgraf was graduated from Texas
A&M almost one year ago, she still feels
strongly about her actions, she said.
However, Zentgraf declined to com
ment further on the case upon the
advice of her lawyer.
oordinating Board refines review process
By PHYLLIS HENDERSON
Battalion Staff
' Since she was 3 years old, Sara has been raised
on Aggie traditions. At that age, she also disco
vered her interest in art.
Now, as a high school senior, Sara is tom by a
lilemma. She must choose between her love of
irt and her love of Texas A&M University. She
an t have both — the University doesn’t offer a
legree program in art, though it’s not from lack
of trying.
“Sara” doesn’t exist, but this dilemma is one
nany students face — trying to find the right
irogram at the right university. Many times, the
iource of their frustrations can be traced directly
:o the decisions made by an 18-member board
ind its staff — the Coordinating Board, Texas
College and University System.
* The Coordinating Board was set up by the
Texas Legislature to coordinate the affairs of the
37 Texas state colleges and universities. Its
members are appointed by the governor.
One of the board’s major responsibilities is
reviewing and approving all new degree prog
rams, and it’s in this area that conflict most often
arises between the board and the universities.
In 1974, the board became concerned with
the proliferation and duplication of programs,
particularly doctoral programs, within the state,
and it refused to accept any new graduate degree
programs for review. This moratorium didn’t
end until the fall of 1980.
The moratorium was “more than just a halt, it
was a review and revision” process, said Norma
Foreman, the board’s assistant commissioner for
senior colleges and universities. It gave the
board a chance to review its standards and set a
clear definition of what its members wanted to
accomplish, she said.
“The goal (of the board) is to provide excell
ence in (academic) offerings, so there is not du
plication,” she said.
Texas A&M administrators agree that the
Coordinating Board needed to review its
approval process and that the moratorium was
beneficial in that respect.
Texas A&M Chancellor Frank W.R. Hubert
said that during the moratorium, “the Coordi
nating Board perfected and refined their review
process.”
He said: “The moratorium, I’m sure, from the
Coordinating Board’s vantage point, was essen
tial. They were receiving dozens and dozens of
new program requests.”
J.M. Prescott, vice president for academic
affairs, agreed, but added: “I think they may
have let it (the moratorium) run too long. ”
In recent years, the Coordinating Board has
toughened its review of all programs, and the
universities have felt the crunch.
“We got most of our programs through prior
to 1974, ” George W. Kunze, dean of the Gradu
ate College, said. “After 1974, it got tougher,
and lately it’s gotten a lot tougher.”
The Coordinating Board has two major criter
ia a new program must meet before it can be
approved:
— Is it within the role and scope of the
university as the board perceives it?
— Are there quality programs in this area
already in existence in the state?
Foreman said: “We are encouraging each
university to review its own role and mission.
We are asking them to try to look at what they’re
doing to see if it is central to their primary mis
sion.”
In the case of Texas A&M, the Coordinating
Board has defined the role and scope of the
University as that of a land-grant college, with an
emphasis on the sciences, engineering and agri
culture.
“It’s a major research institution,” Foreman
said. “Historically, it has been centered in the
sciences, engineering and agriculture. It has a
broad base of extension services. These are all
central to its mission.”
Some University administrators, however,
claim this is a narrow view of the University’s
role and scope, and that programs which have
been submitted to the board in the past, espe
cially in the fine arts, have a legitimate place at
this University.
At this time, a degree in theater arts is the only
program the University offers in the area of fine
arts.
“We’ve got our foot in the door in the fine arts
area, ” Hubert said, “although it’s a little foot in a
big door.
“The fact that Texas A&M’s role and scope
defines it principally as a land-grant type of uni
versity should not be restrictive to the point that
fine arts will be ruled out completely.”
“They (the programs in fine arts) have not
been appropriate for the roles A&M has had in
the past. Foreman said. ” She said if the Univer
sity wants to expand its role and scope, the
change will have to be initiated within the Uni
versity itself.
“A lot of that will be in response to internal
institutional planning,” she said. “We react to
institutional requests. They need to do long-
range planning if they wish to develop in these
areas.”
The University did submit a baccalaureate
degree program in fine arts to the Coordinating
Board’s staff, but withdrew it when the staff said
they would give it a negative recommendation.
In almost all cases, the recommendation of the
staff will stand.
“Unless you’re willing to fight the staffs re
commendation, the Coordinating Board normal
ly will accept the recommendation of its staff,”
Kunze said. “The decision of the staff... stands
85 to 90 percent of the time.
“It behooves you, as an individual, to go to the
staff, presenting your case to the staff to make
certain they fully understand what you’re trying
to do. You need to furnish them with informa
tion. They are dealing with a great variety of
information. This is a matter of being able to
communicate with them.
“There is an occasion wtien the staff has
reached a foregone conclusion (about a program)
— and then you’re fighting a losing battle. ”
In the case of the fine arts program, the staff
said the program did not fall within the role and
scope of the University. Prescott, however, dis
agrees.
“We asked for a bachelor of fine arts in graphic
art,” he said. “We consider that to be a support
for our architecture program. In that light, I
think they put a very narrow constrict on us. If
we had asked for a fine arts program in musicolo
gy, they would have been perfectly justified in
saying it wasn’t within our role and scope.”
If the University is committed to a program
that has been rejected, its only alternative is to
keep trying.
“About all you can do, ” Prescott said, “is wait
awhile and go back to it (the board) with another
approach.”
The Texas Legislature has put more and more
power in the hands of the Coordinating Board in
recent years in order to control the expenses
generated by the universities and colleges.
Kunze said: “The Coordinating Board hasn’t
necessarily asked for this control — the Legisla
ture has given it to them.”
The board’s second criterion when reviewing
programs — duplication — can find its roots in
these economic considerations.
“Educationally unnecessary programs which
duplicate each other are costly to the state,”
Hubert said. The principle reason the board has
become more active in the review of new degree
programs is the fiscal consideration, he said.
In order to curb this duplication, the board
has also been given the power to approve all
courses in each curriculum. Each university and
college must send a course inventory to the
board each year. If a course is not approved by
the board, the school will not receive state funds
for teaching it.
“Their concern is you can start with one
course, and eventually build an entire program
without approval of the board,” said Charles
McCandless, associate vice president for acade
mic affairs.
The board has also been given the authority to
review existing doctoral programs. These re
views are done by outside consultants hired by
the board. These consultants review existing
doctoral programs in a specific academic area in
state institutions when a university requests
approval of doctoral program in that area.
“We welcome the doctoral reviews,”
McCandless said. These reviews can help the
University to improve its programs by pointing
out their weaknesses, he said.
Along with these academic responsibilities,
the board has been given the responsibility of
approving all new campus buildings, except
those funded through the Available University
Fund. Out of deference to the board, however,
Texas A&M submits all building requests to the
board for approval.
With each new power given to the board, the
University is forced to do more work, especially
paperwork. Reports for each program, course
and building must be sent in to the board for
approval.
“It’s taken a lot more time,” McCandless said,
“and sometimes, that’s frustrating.”
Campus landmark will be open for Parents’ Day
By JANE G. BRUST
Battalion StafF
A new building opened in 1932 on the
campus of the Agricultural and Mecha
nical College of Texas, a building which
changed the look and orientation of the
land grant school known today as Texas
A&M University.
With the construction of the Systems
Building, Texas A&M turned to face the
east and a brand new highway. No lon
ger would the Academic Building face
the main campus entrance, formerly the
railroad station to the west.
In observance of Parents’ Day, the
main lobby of the Systems Building will
be open to the public from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m. Sunday.
“We’d like the students to bring their
parents to see it,” said Robert G. Cher
ry, assistant chancellor of the Texas
A&M University System and secretary
to the Board of Regents.
“If s a beautiful building, a landmark
on campus,” he said. “It’s the most mag
nificent state building in Texas.”
A long esplanade literally leads up the
slope to the monumental building
which houses the chancellor’s office as
well as the headquarters of the College
of Agriculture, the Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station and the Texas Agri
cultural Extension Service.
Numerous steps climb up toward
fourteen two-story columns that line the
front of the building and support the
deep horizontal structure forming the
third and fourth stories. Detailed de
signs adorn the exterior cornices and
the edges around heavy doors and
stained glass windows.
From the outside, the stained glass
does not seem to resemble the brilliant
glass commonly found in churches.
Looking at the windows from inside the
building, however, one can see pastel
colors glowing even on a cloudy day.
In contrast to the windows’ pastel
shades, the interior walls, stairway and
ceiling boast colors of gold and blue.
More impressive than the colors,
however, is the detailed design of the
interior architecture.
An enormous lighting fixture island
on the main lobby’s high ceiling features
ornate carvings of animal and human
heads as do tall archways and columns.
On the floor is a brass and terrazzo
map of Texas — measuring 12 feet in
diameter — showing the locations of
several Spanish missions and principal
Texas battles, including the Battle of
San Jacinto. Principal rivers and other
geographical features of Texas also
appear on the map made of brass inlays
and polished marble chips.
In 1970 Texas A&M University Presi
dent James Earl Rudder’s body lay in a
flag-draped coffin over the map on the
lobby floor. Former U.S. President
Lyndon B. Johnson was among those
who visited the Systems Building to pay
last respects to the Texas A&M presi
dent.
Construction of the Systems Building
cost only $362,000. “And that was in the
depths of the Depression,” Cherry said.
“Now it’s worth several million dollars
in architecture.”
StafF photo by Brian Tate
The Systems Building, which was built in 1932, is said to be one of the public Sunday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. for Parents’ Day.
most magnificent state buildings. The main lobby will be open to the