University of Virginia Library

Shannon Clarifies Ruling
For Future SAC Funding

By LIBBY WITHERS

University President Edgar
F. Shannon Jr. stipulated last
Tuesday that Student Council
examine the constitution of
only those funded
organizations "in which
substantial social activity may
be contemplated," in a letter
to Vice-President for Student
Affairs D. Alan Williams.

The letter answers a request
from Student Council for
clarification of the Board of
Visitors' recent decision to
deny funds to the Gay Student
Union (GSU). This decision led
to questions from Council
concerning the future
allocations of all organizations.

Mr Shannon
defined "de facto access" as
existing if membership criteria
in an organization "are applied
equally to all students." He
stated that "those charged with
allocation of the fund
determine the membership
practices of the organization
in fact as distinguished from
statements in its constitutions
or by-laws."

Council's Judgment

The Board desires that
Council "make judgments
concerning the substantial
religious, political or social
activities of a group" and deny
funds to these groups, Mr.
Shannon said.

Council President Jim
Rinaca said the interpretation
leads to "very little change.
The Board meant to deal
specifically with the GSU
funding, not other
allocations."

The Student Activities
Committee (SAC) will
"continue as we have except
for social activities and
speaking groups, but we'll have
to be more careful." Council
Vice President and SAC
Chairman Larry Sabato said.

A resolution calling for
modification of dormitory
space for transfer and 3rd and
4th year students was
unanimously passed by
Council.

"A given number of rooms
shall be reserved" based on "a
fixed percentage of the
population of each student
group," the resolution states.

Nursing school
representative Sally Kauffman
pointed out that "3rd and 4th
year students know the ropes,
and know more about
off-grounds housing than
transfer students."

Miss Kauffman also pointed
out the importance of living on
the Grounds in order to learn
more about the Honor
System.

2.5 Decision Arbitrary

In discussing the
misunderstanding over the
grade point average for Lawn
applicants, Mr. Rinaca, a
member of the requirements
committee, said he "felt the
2.5 decision was made
arbitrarily and is, if not an
injustice, a big
misunderstanding."

He indicated two
alternatives a reconstitution to
decide what the vote
determined, or a reversion to a
2.0 average because of the
delay in action on this matter.

"Mr. Williams felt it unfair
for this year's applicants
because of the delay," Mr.
Rinaca added.