Brown and White Vol. 82 no. 15

              brown and white bethlehem pa tuesday november 10 1970 vol 82 no 15 866-0331 gridders humble eastern power 36-13 the university football team pulled a major eastern upset saturday demolishing the university of delaware 36-13 in front of 13,000 ecstatic fans at taylor stadium on upperrlass parents weekend the win is rated by many as coach fred dun lap's finest in his six-year career for it came over a team that up until saturday was rated eighth in the countrv among small college teams and first in the east in the fight for the lambert cup the trophy is awarded annuallv for eastern supremacy in middle-sized football the win evened the gridders mark at 4-4 and hopes again are high for a winning season saturday the engineers undefeated at home host bucknell at 1:30 p.m anemic hen offense the university outhit outhustled and outplaved delaware from beginning to ewl the hens came into the game with an average of 438 yards per game rush nrr and managed only 131 against the determined engineer defense delaware frustration was epitomized by its fullback chuck hall theall-time delaware rusher had over 700 vards on the season coining into saturday's contest but was blasted time and again his final stats told the story 22 yards in nine carries conversely tlie university's rushing attack was at its fieak saturday led by the outstanding ball handling of quarterback jerry berger lehigh rushed for 37f vards jack rizzo playing with a broken thumb sustained the week before against colgate led the rushers with 134 yards in 32 carries the onslaught started in the first quarter delaware was stopped on its initial series and after the two teams exchanged downs lehigh took possession on the hen 4g jerry berger cuts behind block about to be thrown by tackle price gielen 76 berber's bootlegs opened up the delaware defense for lehigh's punishing running attack as the engineers defeated the highly ranked blue hens 36-13 victories over bucknell and lafayette will give the engineers the first winn ing season in 9 years b&w photo by m < ki iyi penn state experts on residence more individuality needed " problems of residence halls was the topic under consideration at a meeting last thursday night at mcconn house the meeting was sponsored by the rhc the purpose of the meeting was to show problems with the university's residence halls system and regulations two penn state graduate students from the depart ment of architecture brent porter and foster frable led the discussion the two have been studying residence halls problems throughout the united states and canada through a ford foundation grant the meeting was presented in the form of a film slide and lecture with open discussion invited from the audience first slides were shown with a tape recording of a speech by dr van derßyn one of the foremost authorities in the field of residence problems which depicted most of the negative aspect r of university life it was stressed ttiat the greatest problem faced by students in a dormitory environment was the lack of free expression of individual styles ami c haracter van i)er ryn noted in his speech tliat modern residence structures reduce student options and limit what he can do with l>ecause much of the furniture is bolted down he characterized these facilities as a cross lw»tween a fancv hotel and a . penitentiary he added that the design should present options as to the size of the room and arrangement of brent porter u instigated monocacy creek events fragmentation argument important this is the second in a series concerning lehigh university's purchase of land in the saucon valley for graduate housing and the ramifications of lehigh s withdrawal from the monocacy creek graduate housing project by george j bancroft in a letter dated last tuesday to prof . ferdinand beer chairman of the lehigh university forum w deming lewis president has opened a new dimension on the monocacy creek-saucon valley controversy quoting from the letter " the question of location of housing is a critical one as the forumdiscussion made clear and understandable concern continues to be ex pressed about fragmentation of the lehigh community if some housing is placed in the saucon valley a related concern is that once the first mags married and graduate student unit is built in the valley economics will dictate the construction of all future housing on that site regard less of other considerations lewis went on to make three points the first is that the academic campus ought to be reasonably well knit it is for this reason that we are reluctant to use for hous ing those areas which we see as needed for future academic development his second point referred to the " fragmentation argu ment " lehigh's character as an undergraduate insti tution has been residential with all that implies for campus life and actitivies the fragmentation argument ttierefore has particularly important implication or undergraduates i would like to affirm that the university will continue actively to explore the possi bility of such solutions referring to future housing on this side of south mountain his third point was on diversification needs in hous ing a 1968 survey of graduate students indicated their desire for low-rise housing " married students with children welcome garden-type apartments on the other hand single graduate students or couples without child ren may prefer high-rise downtown apartments near campus if these are available at a cost graduate students can afford chronology the chronology of events leading to lehigh university's withdrawal from the monocacy creek urban renewal area graduate housing project provides an interesting example of public relations errors and a misunderstand ing among the parties involved in the project in early march 1968 the university inquired of the bethlehem redevelopment authorities bra alout the availability of land for graduate housing on ju ne 6 1068 the bra asked lehigh to provide statistics about graduate tudents at eh.ich in relation to lehi£h*s plans for developing graduate housing lehigh provided statistics showing that planned grad uate expansion would lead to a large percentage of younger students meaning fewer graduate tudentswith children from the fall 1966 graduate student enrollment lehigh estimated that 46 graduate students sought housing in the area tliat year of this total 243 were married 86 with no children 34 with one child and 59 with two children 450 units lehigh also informed the bra it wanted to build 4:10 graduate units the first phase being ir>o units in the summer of 1967 as reported in a july 21 letter from lehigh to the bra there was a meeting between the two parties where they discussed lehigh's possible purchase of the 16 acres in monocacy creek w deming lewis president of lehigh university said in the letter that he was authorized to pay 200,000 for the property just over 12,500 per acre at the meeting lehigh's representatives also said lehigh's properties in saucon valley and on route 22 were too far from the campus to be convenient to graduate students on august 25 1967 the bra sent a letter to bethlehem mavor gordon payrow and members of bethlehem city council informing them the bra had passed a resolution authorizing negotiation of the sale with lehigh lehigh had also executed a contract agreeing to pur chase the tract for 200,000 the letter said the price was subject to re-use appraisals which were subject to the department of housing and urban development hue the letter said lehigh understood the price could be different it also said the agreement of sale had lehigh agreeing to pay taxes on the property see price page 3 see 13.000 page 16 see end page 4