TO THE EDITOR:

(Sing to the tune of Greensleeves)

Oh, whither goest

The parking meters

Once edged the margin

Of Putnam Way?

Now find ye there

New signs proclaiming

"Service Vehicles" only.

What, what are we to do?

Equipment laden and lots afar

Haste, haste to pay those tickets

No choice be left unto you.

At some unknown time in the recent past, someone in the campus bureaucracy decided to remove the parking meters once located on Putnam Way on the north side of Fronczak Hall and Bonner Hall. These spots have been converted into "service vehicle" parking. Perhaps this someone did not realize that some of us find it necessary, as part of our university affiliation, to transport equipment, print materials and supplies to/from our campus offices for the purpose of presenting professional and/or community presentations. The Governors parking lot happens to be closest to my office in Capen Hall, and carrying or wheeling a desktop computer or box of literature from this lot is near impossible in snow or icy conditions, not to mention the hardship inflicted on the equipment by the jostling and exposure to the elements.

In the future, those of us in this situation will be faced with the likelihood of a parking ticket when loading or unloading heavy materials between office and car. For those in my office, this will be a very real and fairly frequent problem. I am not aware of whether other meters around campus were removed as well, or whether this is an isolated circumstance.

My office window looks out upon the north side of Fronczak and I can tell you that for the most part there are no "service vehicles" or any other vehicles using these spaces, which leads me to believe that there was no urgent need to convert them. Was consideration given to the hardship this (certainly irreversible) change would inflict on the university community ("service vehicles" excepted)? It does not appear so to me.

PATRICIA COTY

NCEER Information Service

President's commitment to affirmative action benefits university

DEAR EDITOR:

Just over 200 years ago Benjamin Banneker, a free black and first African American scientist of record, wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson, then United States Secretary of State. He pleaded with the great statesman to use the power of his office, and the influence of his reputation, to help free his brethren from the thralldom of slavery. Banneker also sent Jefferson a copy of his soon-to-be published Almanac and Ephemeris, sharing with the Secretary some of his astronomical data and calculations.

In that letter, Banneker applauded Jefferson for his stirring words in the Declaration of Independence, calling that document worthy to be remembered by succeeding generations. But the sentiment of the nation leaned strongly if not overwhelmingly against such a revolutionary change and Jefferson, by his own words, lacked commitment to the idea of freedom, needing evidence, he said, that blacks were similarly endowed as other men.

Today, on another matter, a strong sentiment sweeps the country in opposition to affirmative action. Some want to return to the day when a quota system (usually 100-0) mitigated against access and opportunity for blacks, other minorities, and women. Politicians at every level in every section of the country, rail against it and get elected. Former supporters of the concept now abandon it in ever-increasing numbers. Polls suggest growing opposition to its continuation, weak though it may have always been. Hate groups use it as an excuse for violence or threats of violence. Myths and false innuendoes abound, despite clear employment, wealth, housing, income, prison population and other indicators to the contrary.

Into this environment, President and Professor William R. Greiner reasserted his commitment to affirmative action and diversity (Reporter, November 9, 1995) because the end results will mean a fairer, better, more just university that better educates our diverse population. That is what we are supposed to do. Whatever we have done in the area of affirmative action and diversity at this university has not been at the expense of quality.

In his forthright statement, the president framed a sound, logical course of action to continue, not retreat from the progress made. He proposed not some quick fix, not some legerdemain, but a reasoned and reasonable long-term commitment that does not grow faint with time or in fear. The campus would well applaud his program and acknowledge his integrity and courage to the benefit of UB and the public it serves.

Sincerely,

EDWARD S. JENKINS

Associate Professor, Science Education

FSEC action 'hasty' on SUNY restructure

TO THE EDITOR:

The Faculty Senate Executive Committee acted inappropriately and too hastily when it formally supported the proposal to "restructure" SUNY presented by Trustee Thomas Egan.

The only apparent reason for such haste was President Greiner's desire to present some evidence of faculty support for this proposal before the Board of Trustees meeting at a resort in Bolton Landing on Nov. 13. This deadline is probably the reason for an attempt to get a similar resolution passed by the University Council without even holding a meeting.

The FSEC said it supported the "scope and thrust" of the Egan resolution. This implies that the FSEC supports decreased state support for the SUNY campuses, and "downsizing," "increased teaching productivity" and the development of "a stronger market orientation." The only gain would be for local administrators, who would have more authority over "faculty hiring, pay and workload; research and consulting; and the level of tuition and fees." If implemented, this plan would probably result in closing some campuses, privatizing teaching hospitals and then medical schools from SUNY, and decreasing the rights and collective bargaining power of faculty and staff.

It was not only hasty but counter to the interest of the faculty to support the Egan proposal. As a member of the faculty, I protest. I hope the full Senate will reverse this ill-conceived decision.

JEAN DICKSON

Lockwood Library