Fee increase is necessary for a growing campus
Dear Editor,
After reading Vladimir Kogan’s opinion piece in the Nov. 7 issue of the Guardian, I am frustrated by the subtext of his paragraph on the University Centers. The implication is that the approval of a fee increase for the expansion and renovation of University Centers (including both the Price Center and the Student Center) was a bad idea. I argue otherwise. This fee was, and remains, desperately needed to cope with issues such as lack of meeting space and offices for student organizations, crowded dining and lounge facilities, and particularly the need for improvement and renovation to aging buildings.
It is true that in the early planning for the University Centers expansion our money, a total of $56 million (this includes both projects and the contributions from other campus entities that have space in the expansion), bought us more than it does today. I would love to point my finger at somebody, write letters to the editor and op-ed pieces in the Guardian uncovering mismanagement, and blow a whistle as loud as I can. But the truth is that the issue of the budget is the fault of nobody.
The reality is that construction costs have soared over the past several years. At first there was a shortage of steel and concrete due to rapid economic expansion in nations such as China, then natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Right now, for geopolitical, economic and natural reasons, demand for construction materials has outstripped supply of these goods. Is it frustrating? Yes. Is it painful? Absolutely. However, our problem still stands: Our student population is growing and our facilities are designed for fewer students than are currently enrolled.
At this point, we have made some very painful decisions, but it is important to realize that they are not being made in a haphazard ad hoc fashion. We must preserve the program outlined in the fee referendum, and our decisions should be transparent. The goal is to always make these types of choices and minimize their negative impact.
We have made other difficult decisions. But we continue because these facilities needed to be expanded several years ago, and no delay is acceptable. I have continually called for increased administrative support for this project, especially in the realm of fundraising.
This leads me my next point. We have not, and will not abandon the language of the fee referendum. I will do everything in my power to guarantee this. Just to let you know, at this point, we are still providing spaces for the student body beyond what were originally called for in the fee referendum. We will exceed our commitment to the student body.
Just to add a little perspective before I close: The current Student Center facility has not been significantly upgraded in decades. At night the lighting is poor, the electric wiring often has problems, and the complex does not comply with current Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. We must improve the Student Center so our student organizations can trust the infrastructure of the facility, and so all students can freely access this center.
-— Jared Feldman
Chair, University Centers Advisory Board; co-chair, University Centers Building Advisory Committee
A.S. ban of ‘Koala TV’ threatens free speech
Dear Editor,
The council’s decision to ban “Koala TV” has snowballed into something much bigger. It’s no longer about porn. It’s no longer about Steve York. It’s about freedom of expression, the independence of our Student-Run Television station, and the student government’s tendency to act like the administration instead of standing up for students.
It’s politics.
A.S. Vice President Finance Greg Murphy, along with Commissioner of Communications Soap Chum, shut down a live student-run television show on SRTV. This Thursday night show was an episode of “The Bri Show” called “Perfect Vision,” a political talk show that criticized the A.S. Council.
Murphy claims that he shut it down because members of “Koala TV” were in the studio, but no members of “Koala TV” were working on “Perfect Vision” on the night that Murphy shut it down.
Murphy claims that unscheduled shows and live shows like “Perfect Vision” were banned. This isn’t true either. “The Bri Show” was indeed scheduled, and SRTV has always allowed its members to host impromptu live shows when the studio was available. There is no rule that says otherwise.
Murphy claims that he should’ve been let into the studio because he was A.S. Commissioner of Student Services Maurice Junious’ “delegate.” At no time did Murphy tell us that he had been “empowered” or “designated” as a “delegate” by some mysterious e-mail sent by Junious.
As vice president finance, Murphy doesn’t have anything to do with SRTV, so there was no reason to let him inside. When Murphy started pounding on the front door of the studio and demanded to be let in, we did not comply. SRTV doesn’t allow random people to interrupt shows while they’re in progress, and if he had truly been given authority to enter the station, he should have had a door code. The SRTV members that were helping with the show had door codes, so why didn’t the almighty Murphy?
For overstepping his authority and unilaterally getting our student-run television station pulled off the air, Murphy should seriously re-examine where his priorities lie. The rest of the council should be ashamed that they allowed their censorship to go this far. “Perfect Vision” had nothing to do with pornography or nudity — it was a talk show, for crying out loud.
— Daniel Watts
Earl Warren College senior
Article misrepresented the co-op debate
Dear Editor,
In the Nov. 7 issue, Vladimir Kogan, in an article about the A.S. Council’s decision to shut down SRTV, heavy-handedly alluded to last year’s complex situation involving the campus co-ops. Mr. Kogan attempted to draw a parallel between the A.S. Council’s reactions to the two, while in reality the issues are so complexly different that any reference to the co-ops was unnecessary and irrelevant. In his article, Mr. Kogan referred to the co-op controversy as “mild” and insinuated that the A.S. Council overstepped its boundaries and severely overreacted in its defense of the co-ops.
In actuality, the conflict between the co-ops and the university administration has been going on for more than a decade and is rooted much more deeply than Mr. Kogan explains. It is absurd of him to assert that the A.S. Council “jumped into the fray” because, as student-run and student-financed beings, the co-ops are clearly under the jurisdiction of the A.S. Council and not the university administration. The essential disenfranchisement of four “of-the-students-for-the-students” organizations and the discussion of pornography are not even comparable. Mr. Kogan lends little to his argument by belittling the co-ops and instead detracts from what could have been a very strong and uniting piece of journalism.
In the future, let’s worry about the situation at hand, shall we?
— Hadley Mendoza
John Muir College freshman
