Annotations (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 20, No. 7, Ed. 1, February, 1992 Page: 2 of 8
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Despite the am val of the new year, South
Texas continues to be plagued by some of
the same old problems. The failure to settle
on a reasonable attendance policy has frus-
trated both faculty and students. No one
seems toknow just what the college's policy
is, much less how to enforce it. Aside from
the troubles inside the classroom, there's
another fire smoldering in the hallways.
The battle between smokers and non-smok-
ers is threatening to ignite unless the admin-
istration takes decisive action.
Last spring, the faculty voted to abandon
the old method of taking attendance. Gone
were the attendance sheets distributed by
the Registrar's office. The decision meant
students no longer would have to fight to
sign in; instead, teachers could concentrate
on teaching, and students could concentrate
on learning. It was thought highly educated
people (both faculty and students) could
arrive at a dignified means of taking atten-
dance without disrupting the learning pro-
But, the move backfired. The same prob-
lems that sunk the previous policy - what to
do about students' coming in late and sign-
ing the roll; what about students' signing in
for other students; what about students who
arrived on time, signed in, but then left early
- remain. The only advantage to the new
system is the money saved from having to
print attendance sheets.
And, the policy is about to change again.
The faculty will take up the attendance
issue at its regularly scheduled meeting
later this month. One proposal being con-
sidered would have students sign affidavits
at the end of the semester indicating they
attended the required number of times.
Another alternative would continue the
policy of taking attendance but only in
Concerns have been expressed over both
approaches. Some faculty members have
secretlyjoked that students cannot be trusted
to sign the affidavits. The State Board of
Law Examiners runs a character check on
every student at South Texas, yet some
professors still think we cannot be trusted,
ironic isn't it? As for the second alternative,
other professors foil to see the distinction
between requiring attendance for certain
courses but not for others.
What is even more disturbing about this
whole mess is that students likely will have
no say in the outcome. Faculty meetings are
not open to the student body.
SOUTH TEXAS KINDERGARTEN OF LAW
by Boyd Shepherd
Alright class, listen up!
Pursuant to the new STCL Roll Taking
policy, roll call shall consist of calling everyone's
name aloud, checking birth certificates, social
security numbers, and driver's licenses, along with
a photo-seating chart registered with the feds,
videotape, fingerprinting, police dog inspection,
and of course, a blood oath, all subject to FBI and
CIA review. Any questions?
Yeah, uhh,.... what if we have a note from
our mother ? \ i I )//£,
^ ' C
As for the smoking issue, the outlook is
cloudy at best. Smokers, forced out of the
newly renovated student lounge, have sought
refuge in the atrium and the hallways out-
side classes. Thus, giving new meaning to
the phrase "stepping out for a breath of
fresh air." Non-smokers are entitled to
smoke-free passage to their lockers and
classes. The appointment of a committee
last fall to study the problem has not helped
clear the air. And, there is little reason to
expect the problem will go away on its own.
For a law school intent on improving its
image, problems like these cannot help.
Now, about the weather....
Editor Andy Marker
Managing Editor Steve Petrou
Business Manager Kellye Heasley
Contributors Rob Clark
Charles Van Cleef
Faculty Advisor Randall Kelso
Annotations is published each month
except December and May.
Letters to the editor are welcomed.
They may be turned in on a
double-sided, double density 5 1/4
inch disk accompanied by a hard
copy. The editor reserves the
right to edit for libel and length.
Annotations is located in room 208,
phone number 759-9142.
For the record...
by Pamela Hilsher
Do you think television cameras should be allowed inside courtrooms?
Coleman Tucker, 2L:
Most definitely, as long as the jury is
sequestered so the coverage does not con-
taminate the jury.
Boyd Shepherd, 2L:
Yes, people need to be aware of the
system and how it works. It will help them
make more educated decisions during elec-
Kay Kurtin, 2L:
Yes, because it is the right ofthe public to
know what is going on in the court system,
and it is a great educational tool.
Blanche Stovall, 2L:
No, because I would really miss those
pastel drawings shown on the news. It would
put courtroom artists out of work.
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Marker, Andy. Annotations (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 20, No. 7, Ed. 1, February, 1992, newspaper, February 1992; Houston, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth144481/m1/2/: accessed February 20, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting South Texas College of Law.