Sunday, November 11, 1979 ‘ILLEGAL’ IRANIAN STUDENTS FACE DEPORTATION

-->

San Francisco Examiner       Sunday, November 11, 1979

‘ILLEGAL’ IRANIAN STUDENTS FACE DEPORTATION

Examiner News Services

WASHINGTON — President Carter, concerned that demonstrations in the United States could have an adverse effect on the 65 US. hostages in Iran, ordered the Justice Department yesterday to deport Iranian students who are violating the terms of their entry visas.

Carter ordered that all Iranian students report to the federal immigration service at once.

 White House press secretary Jody Powell said there is reason to believe ' "many" of the. Iranians in the United States on student visas are violating immigration laws.

The National Association for Foreign Student Affairs said there are 45,239 Iranian students in the United States this year.

Powell said the Justice Department was ordered to take the necessary steps to commence deportation proceedings against, those who have violated immigration laws.

The order applies only to students, and presumably to persons here on student visas who are no longer attending classes.

Powell noted that simply participating in a legal demonstration would not be cause for. deportation, because a person legally in this country is deemed to have the same constitutional rights as a US. citizen. A student visa, however, does impose certain requirements the students must meet to remain in good standing.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service will issue a notice requiring Iranian students to report their location and status to the nearest INS office, Powell said. He did not know

precisely when that would happen.

Additional steps, such as contacting college officials, will be taken to find Iranian students and determine their status, he added.

"For students found to be in illegal status, deportation proceedings will be conducted in accordance with constitutional due process requirements," Powell said. He conceded that could take some time

Powell said: "I think the activities past and planned for the future here are not in the best interests of our principal goal. (of securing the release of 65 US. hostages at the US. Embassy in Tehran). There is an obligation to enforce the law.'

The administration is known to believe that demonstrations may further escalate tensions and adversely affect the safety of the hostages. Protesting Iranian students already have clashed with US. citizens the last few days, and more demonstrations were planned.

Powell said several hundred Iranian students have been subject to deportation since Carter ordered in January that their visas be scrutinized. That order followed violent demonstrations against the family of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in Beverly Hills.

Carter last week ordered a demonstration permit revoked for Iranian students in the nation's capital Apparently he felt that did not go far enough.

A Justice Department spokesman said Carter's order probably will lift a moratorium on the departure of Iranian students imposed in April because of the turmoil in Iran. He said at that time some of the students whose visas had run out had asked to remain in the United States because they feared to return home and their requests were granted.

A White House official, who did not wish to be identified, said the administration "considered carefully" whether the deportation order would result in retaliation against the hostages.

"There is also concern that the activities here may not have the best impact," the official said, apparently referring to demonstrations.

The White House is known to believe the action is a legitimate way of dealing with a sensitive situation it feels is compromised by public demonstrations and possible violence.

Chicago - Still the Same San Francisco Chronicle (CA)

Chicago - Still the Same

San Francisco Chronicle (CA) (Published as THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE) - July 20, 1987Browse Issues

• Author/Byline: JOEL SELVIN
• Edition: FINAL
• Section: DAILY DATEBOOK
• Page: 50
• Readability: >12 grade level (Lexile: 1490)

After an unremitting near-two-hour barrage of syrupy ballads, it took Bill Champlin to finally pull the pin on the performance by Chicago at Mountain View's Shoreline Amphitheatre on Saturday and finally set off some explosives.

Of course, these plodding, fanciful love songs have been the bland pop-rock band's main stock-in-trade throughout Chicago's almost 20-year career, but the steady stream of anguished pleas hardly makes for exciting concert material.

So when vocalist Champlin finally got the chance to whip out his patented, grizzled soulese, the crowd leaped to their feet as though an electric cattle prod had been applied simultaneously to their collective backside. Champlin stalked the stage, preaching like a Baptist deacon, leaping to the floor to work the crowd from its midst. Suddenly, it was like a different band.

Unfortunately, Chicago went back to being its same old self immediately after Champlin finished demolishing "We Can Make It Happen."

Actually, it was like there were two bands onstage at Shoreline. Chicago performed two sets, the first concentrating on earlier material and the second focusing on what singer Bobby Lamm called "the Warner Brothers era," referring to the record label for which the long-standing pop-rockers have recorded for the past five years.

Under the supervision of sleek, glib producer-songwriter David Foster, Chicago has managed to continue to pop out slick chart-topping hits with regularity, even if the group's sound under Foster's heavy-handed influence has tended toward a dry sameness, with precious little messing with the successful formula.

So the first half featured a brassy sound almost entirely at odds with the synthesizer-dominated attack of "the Warner Brothers era" material. The Foster sound depends greatly on thickly layered keyboard parts, occasionally calling for no fewer than four musicians to operate synthesizers (with drummer Danny Seraphine playing synthesized drums, no less).

Not that the band didn't display considerable musical chops. Musicians casually switched off instruments on every number, falling into new formations on each tune like a football team hitting the line of scrimmage.

Bassist Jason Sheff, who last year replaced Peter Cetera, the band's former bass player and main lead singer, uncannily duplicated the trademark tenor Cetera plied to Chicago's sticky ballads. In fact, one fan carried a sign in the audience reading "Peter Who?" Sheff popped and clicked out difficult bass lines with ease and grace, in tandem with drummer Seraphine, providing the group's distinctive bottom end sound.

Sheff and Lamm traded most of the lead vocals, with Champlin, a veteran of Bay Area rock stalwarts the Sons of Champlin, adding only occasional leads. The three-man horn section, who seemed virtually dispensable during the second half, polished the sound with rippling accents and occasional solos.

But, ultimately, the musicianship fell victim to the banal, bland and boring material to which it was applied. While the solidly white, suburban crowd lapped it up like happy puppies, time wore heavy on the hands of anyone expecting any genuine excitement out of the band.

That Chicago has endured through 18 albums -each imaginatively titled by consecutive numbers - is a minor miracle in itself in the ephemeral world of pop music. By sculpting a popular style and doing it to death, the group obviously has cut a niche for itself that nothing can budge.

Clearly, Chicago is a commercial proposition, not a group of free spirits expressing themselves for the love of music, but a band of cunning professionals who know how to make a good living.

• Caption: PHOTOBill Champlin (at keyboards, left) provided a spark to Chicago's show at Shoreline Amphitheatre on Saturday night; the band's new bassist Jason Sheff is in the foreground / BY DEANNE FITZMAURICE/ THE CHRONICLE

Chicago in the Key of Hokey By Joel Selvin

San Francisco Chronicle       Tue., March 30, 1976

 Chicago in the Key of Hokey

By Joel Selvin

No taste is bad taste, or so the old saying goes.

Chicago, an immensely popular rock band which appeared over the weekend at the Cow Palace, is a perfect case in point.

In the hands of the eight musicians who comprise the band, musical boundaries fall away and the result is as characterless and absent of commanding personality as the group itself.

"San Francisco: You're fabulous," screamed trombonist/emcee James Pankow repeatedly. His phony enthusiasm as host set an appropriately hokey tone for the evening.

Chicago was dwarfed by a gigantic stage set, which created a cityscape street scene out of trash cans, street lamps, traffic signs, and one bright "Nick's Pool Hall" neon sign glowing above the drum sets.

The group performed two separate hour-long segments, with a half-hour intermission in between. The sold out crowd Sunday reacted strongly from the first few notes of any of the numerous Chicago AM radio hits the band performed, but mostly sat on their hands during the less familiar pieces,

Vocalist-songwriter Robert Lamm, obscured off the left behind a bank of keyboards, and bassist Peter Cetera, whose vocals are responsible for the distinctive Chicago vocal sound, shared lead vocals, supported substantially by harmony singing from all the band members.

The group interspersed their hits with older album cuts and material from the forthcoming Chicago LP, "Chicago X." "Chicago IX," a greatest hits compilation, has been one of the biggest-selling albums of the past four months.

The band returned to touring after a three-year hiatus last summer with a cross-country baseball park tour with the Beach Boys. Aside from the Oakland Coliseum Stadium appearance last May, Chicago has made no Bay Area concert performances since the vast bulk of their hits made the charts.

Musically, Chicago borrowed madly from any musical form handy: jazz, Stax/Volt soul, New York salsa, MOR pop. The band managed an astounding homogenization; even spicy hot Latin riffs came off tepid and tired.

The entire first half of the second segment was devoted to undistinctive, virtually anonymous instrumental compositions that left most of the teenage crowd listless.

Only the driving final section to "Feeling Better Every Day," which brought the show to a close, boosted interest.

CHAMPLIN JOINS A DRAB CHICAGO By Joel Selvin. June 7, 1982

 
-->

San Francisco Chronicle       Mon., June 7, 1982

CHAMPLIN JOINS A DRAB CHICAGO

By Joel Selvin

     Even Bill Champlin can’t save Chicago. The immensely talented triple-threat player/singer/writer was on board when the once massively popular band hit the Circle Star Theater last weekend on the comeback trail.

     Champlin replaces guitarist Terry Kath, killed in a gun accident more than four years ago, both in the performing band and in the studio, on the group's latest album, "Chicago XVI."

     No more talented musician ever left the San Francisco rock scene than Champlin. For 13 years, he led the Marin-based Sons of Champlin, one of area's most distinguished musical organizations, which never was appreciated by a broad following. Once he moved to Hollywood, however, Champlin changed his luck, scoring a big success as a recording session player and songwriter, turning out hits for the likes of Earth, Wind and Fire and George Benson.

     So along comes a renovated Chicago, popsters behind tuneful but superficial ‘70s AM radio hits like “Feeling Stronger Every Day," "Saturday in the Park,” “Wishing You Were Here," among others. Armed with new bigtime management in Irving Azoff, business brain behind the Eagles, Boz Scaggs, Steely Dan and others, a new recording contract and a new record producer, David Foster, whose recent credits include such hip stylists as the Tubes and Hall and Oates. Chicago invited Champlin to play, sing and write for the band.

     At first glance, it seemed a promising combination: Champlin, the peerless white soul singer and resolutely funky master musician, with the kings of white bread brand bogus soul, a personality-less-hand joined by a genuine incendiary performer.

     Even if the rotating stage at the relatively small Circle Star Theater may be something of a bringdown for a group accustomed to performing at cavernous halls like the Cow Palace or, worse yet, massive open-air shows at baseball stadiums, there is no excuse for the lame, drab 90-minute performance Chicago gave at the early show Friday.

     Save for Champlin, the band's lineup had all the original members, including loathsomely ingratiating vocalist Bobby Lamm, whose putrid outfit and blow-dried hair style would have looked square in a second-rate lounge act. The three-piece horn section and seasoned, drummer supplied the evening's musical highlights. Drummer Danny Seraphine surely steered the band through tidy rhythm changes, with the brass supplying grand, glorious flourishes out of the Stax-Volt school of Memphis horns.

     The band mixed bland numbers from the new album with equally bland hits from its auspicious past, bassist Peter Cetera adding a Beach Boys vocal touch in contrast with Lamm's sullen, silky tones and Champlin's gritty, growling approach. Champlin is a strong enough personality to dominate a group with even as rigid a membership as Chicago, but he never got much room to move. It was a little like keeping Reggie Jackson in the lineup as a pinch-hitter. 

Richard Moll's 1981 UC Admissions Article Text

April 16, 1981

Education

The Problem in UC Admissions

BY RICHARD MOLL

Last summer, I abandoned the East where I had spent 23 years in college admissions at Yale, Harvard, Bowdoin and Vassar — all private, all truly selective (and a bit pretentious about it) and all conservative, or so I thought.

After less than a year, my elitist, "conservative" Ivy college homes of the past now strike me as considerably more flexible, sensitive, imaginative and (I will risk saying) serious in reviewing candidates for admission than the quite selective University of California.

With a budget of nearly $1 billion this year, the university is assuming severe public responsibility. Its undergraduate admissions policies should, it follows, be responsible.

But in my view, the UC admissions policy is Neanderthal — adequate for some bygone era perhaps, but out-classed by both private and public colleges in many less progressive parts of our nation today.

In short, the UC admissions system is painfully superficial. It just could be that the emperor is wearing scanty clothes.

The requirements for admission to the UC system as an undergraduate are simple and stated upfront. A high school student must prepare by taking four years of English, one year of history; two years of math, one year of a laboratory science, two years of a foreign language and one advanced course in foreign language, math or natural science.

After that, admission is based strictly on numbers. The university looks at grades alone, test scores alone or a combination of grades and test scores.

If a California high school senior's grades for the 10th through 12th grades in the required subjects average 3.3 or better, he or she is in. Or if the student's SAT scores (combined math and verbal) total 1100 or higher, and the scores for three CEEB achievement tests (in English, math, foreign language or social studies) total 1650 or higher, admission is automatic.

If the grade point average or the test scores fall short of these automatic admit marks, there is an Eligibility Index which plays off grades against test scores on a sliding scale. With a grade point average of 2.85, for example, a student can win admission with SAT scores of 1440. With a grade point average of 3.06, the SAT scores can be as low as 950 and the student still will be admitted. In my opinion there are at least six evils inherent in this system, and our high school students are not being given a fair chance for admission to the state's top level of higher education.

1. Those Detested Tests: Yes, a uniform quantifier must be used, and the College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the Achievement Test battery fill the bill responsibly (as does the less-often used American Col-loge Test (ACT) battery). Despite charges of racial bias, these tests have a good track record in predicting college success (for rich and poor alike.)

But UC does not heed the warning of the College Board and the Educational Testing Service that the test not be allowed to stand-alone. At UC you can be admitted by test scores alone, no matter how rotten your high school record.

If the tests-alone policy is retained, it certainly could be made more fair, especially for the moderate tester. And California kids need a break here, since in the past decade the average SAT score in the state dropped 40 points in verbal (compared to an average drop nationally of 29 points) and 31 points in math (compared to a drop of 18 points nationally.)

The College Board people say that an SAT score cannot be read precisely, but must be considered as a "symbol" of performance within a 60-point range. But this is not so at UC, where a score is a score. If a student's scores don't add up to 1100, the test-only route to admission is closed.

2. The Easy-Way-Out Incentive: UC gives no greater weight in compiling a grade point average to advanced courses than to any other course. To choose advanced chemistry over regular chemistry or honors English over Basic English may denote love of learning, but it is probably a mistake if admission to UC is the goal. An "A" grade in general biology means as much as an "A" in college biology. So why take the college prep course when admission is available by another, less strenuous and probably safer route?

3. An "A" Is An "A" Is An "A.' We all know it is more difficult to get an "A" at Lowell High School in San Francisco or at Beverly Hills High School or at the private Harvard School than at most of the other secondary schools in this state. The level of competition varies enormously from secondary school to secondary school, and so does the grading curve. But UC is blind to the differences. An "A" from one school is the same as an "A" from any other. The kids in schools where it is relatively easy to attain a high grade point average are therefore favored by UC. A lot.

4. The Oh-Let-Them-Enjoy-School Web:

We Californians simply don't require enough substantial learning at the secondary school level. It may be no fun to learn how adjectives differ from adverbs, or how to conjugate verbs, but it is surely less fun not to know how to write or speak well later.

The elitist private colleges with which UC compares itself are very fussy about courseload, courseload, courseload. Stanford requires that a student take in grades 10 through 12 three years of English, three years of math, two or more years of laboratory science, three years of one foreign language, and electives in art and music.

UC's requirements, as I have noted, are considerably less stringent. And UC, through its requirements, sets the model for high school courseloads throughout the state. So we see that 15 percent of our boys take three or more years of science compared with 30 percent nationwide. In math, 32 percent of California's girls take four or more years compared with 45 percent nationwide.

5. Quantitative, Yes. Qualitative, No:

UC admits by statistics alone. We don't ask students even to list on their application the extracurricular activities in which they have been involved. Johnny has spent tireless hours on the tuba, Joan on the soccer field, but UC isn't interested. If there is extraordinary talent in a special area —particularly athletics — a student might gain admission by Special Action, a category limited to 6 percent of the entering class on each campus. But for most, these talents play no role in the admissions process.

6. The Cost. Wow: At first, I couldn't understand why it takes three times the staff at UC-Santa Cruz to process the same size applicant pool as we had at Vassar. This puzzle is compounded by the fact that at UC we have only numbers to review, not essays, recommendations, portfolios of poems or photographs or excerpts from term papers. And each folder is reviewed by only one person at UC. Now I have discovered the difference. UC loves lists and manuals, and it needs them to codify all the rules and regulations. Of course, it takes people to produce the rules and manuals, and people to apply them in all corners of the state. The rules are followed religiously, even though most have evolved mysteriously. ■ •

Richard Moll is Dean of Admissions at the University. of California at Santa Cruz and author of "Playing the Private College Admissions Game." This article was adapted from a speech he made recently at a UC forum in Berkeley

News Story about Leland Sandler

Last week the Contra Costa Times published a long story about a relationship that teacher/coach Leland Sandler had with a female student in the early 1980's.  He was eventually forced to resign.  It was past our time at the school but the teachers and administrators involved were at SR when we were there.  I am choosing not to link to the story but it can be readily found using internet search engines.

New Facebook Group

We have started a new Facebook Group for our Class of '79.  50+ Facebook members have been added so far. (The old FB group, created in 2009, was rendered mostly non-functional when Facebook modified its groups structure, so we had to begin again. I hope to transfer some of the old postings and links over to the new FB group.)

The website address for our new Facebook Group is:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/SRVHSClassof1979/

You will need to be a member of Facebook to view the page -- and you probably need to be added to the group as well.  I've added all of my SR '79 Facebook Friends.  Contact me at Facebook.com/jbramsey if you need help in joining the group.

A 35 Year Reunion should be coming up in 2014, although no formal committee is established nor have plans been made yet. Everyone's input is needed!  (Date, Place, Format, etc.)