PARKING: 150' PER DAY IS TOO ITICTI
Each term, Shortly after registration.
the Business Office issues a statement to
the effect that all cars parked in the
Behrend Campus parking lots must have stick
ers or them. The cost of these "stickers"
is $750 per term. If nearly 450 day students
'olly these and other forms of parking permitr.
for three termsthe total revenue from park
ing lots is in the neighborhood of *lO,OOO.
(The exact figures and tabulations were not
Made known.) The Nittany Cub does not know
That this money is used for, although a
logical conclusion would be maintenance.
Ten-thousand dollars is certainly a hirrh
price to pay for maintenance for t , .ro black
top lots s , - , c 3 a r:ll'dcly rTnvel lot.
It 4 6 , 1 e s -, 77,e5t - T_on of the staff-' . '
of the NittL , ny CI°D ttiist the term parkin):
fee of $7. -, 'o be 10-'ered to $5.00, and
that all other rates be lowered accordingly.
The students end faculty should then feel
obligated to fully comply rather then defy
Campus parking rules and regulations. If
sl , pport is given to this suggestion by the
administration, faculty, and students the
parking and heavy traffic on the Behrend
Campus will flow cheaper and more according
to la—.
The Nittany Cub editors welcome letters
on vital topics from all readers. These
letters may be turned in to the editors or
other members of the staff.
The author of the letter must sign his
name, 'but if he requests not to have his
name printed we will comply.
We reserve the right to print only
those letters which we deem appropriate and
to print only excerpts of others.
LaVlM.jKfagijWliffil
To the D'itor:
As a member of the Student Government
Association, I have found no justice in
your criticism of it. You have stated that
you accept all letters to the editor.
You should have stated they must agree with
you. This is my third such letter disputing
your editorials on the SGA. lam tired of
-riting snd not satisfied with their recertion.
As the only circulated mear; ^f communi
cation on the campus, you have succeeded in
an attack, but you have rot informed the
student body of any facts other than those
you critcize.
I will no longer refer to your previots
articles, since you will not accept criticism.
I will instead direct my pleas to the student
body. You, the student body, have the right
to be better informed on the situation in
question, end I am hoping that you will
demand this from the Nittany Cub, Any reply
that is received will prove the student
body is not as apthetic as the Cub has said
them to be.
POLICY
To the Editor:
I have been reading the Nittany Cub faith
fully from cover to cover for the last five
weeks. I particularly liked the article where
you stated this years Cub wanted to print the
student's veiws on issues brought up in the
newspaper. That is why I cannot understand why
the few letters to the editor have all been in
favor of the paper's stand on these controver
sial subjects. I know it is not that everyone
agrees with everything prirted in the Cub. I
also understand that you have "editors
privelee" which means that you can revise any
letters. Is this so and if so in what ways can
you change them?
To the Editor:
what in blue blazes gives some people the
supreme gall to criticize a newspaper that's
doing exactly what it is supposed to...inform
the students on what's going on around here?
I'll tell you, it takes a lotbf nerve
to write a letter like the one's published in
this issue.
It is a right... an undeniable right, at
that, for a person to voice his opinion. We
don't belittle this.
Nobody can challenge this . right. It's
basic to our society.
But it becomes a downright abuse of a
right when someone attempts to slander the
operation of a newspaper that is probably
the greatest motivating force in keeping
a tight rein on campus politics.
The letters submitted, as you can well
see, are nothing more than a bunch of malarkey
expounding the virtues of the SGA without so
much as offering a hint of solution to the
problems the paper presents.
These letters are meant as nothing more
than a jibe-a smear. They attempt to accom
plish zero and do just that.
Constructive criticism with answrs, or
counter-solutions is the acceptable method
of accomplishing what you want. You can't, get
something published that is just a confeder
ation of jibberish.
I'm sure you'd get the same affect if you
tried to have a discertation of the beauty of
cumulus clouds published in any other newspaper.
It's all along the same lines.
The paper is doing exactly what it is sup
posed to do. If SGA members do not like what
the paper is saying about their organization,
then let's see them do something about it, in
deed not word.
That's the paper's goal. They'll contin
ually be subjected to attack from the people
whose toes they step on, whether SGA or not.
An appropriate statment to tack on the
door of the publications room would be one
uttered by Abe Lincoln a long time ago. It
went something like this: "You can please all
of the people some of the time and you'can
please some of the people all, of the time,
but you can't pleabe all the people Oa of
the time.
Patricia Franz
An Interested Student