Argument Against
SRTV is Laughable
Dear Editor:
It is not too surprising the sample ballot for this week’s special election gave me more laughs than an episode of “Koala TV.” The “No” side not only doesn’t even bother dealing with the issues at hand in its statements, but omits some very important details.
Student-Run Television will not be returned to the air if this ban is upheld; administrators have made it clear that the station will only be returned if all of their conditions are met. While some of the demands are reasonable, others are not. Perhaps most important of these, along with the continued ban on “graphical sexual depictions” is the creation of a program review board to approve all new programming. This is prior restraint, an illegal and absolutely unnecessary form of censorship that will destroy the ability of students to get involved with SRTV. Considering that the A.S. Council funds all other media under “content neutrality,” why it is willing to create a board that can kick off current and new programs under “community standards” remains a mystery. Programming will be banned unless scheduled a week in advance. Does that sound reasonable?
My banishment from SRTV was not because of my decision to focus on Thurgood Marshall College senior Kate Pillon’s blatantly hypocritical actions in my crude, satirical fashion during that particular video segment, as the “No” side alleges. It was only over the airing of sexual material. If our elected members felt so strongly about this “hateful attack,” why did they not pass legislation to prohibit any future “attacks” and focus solely on porn? How my adult entertainment constitutes “hate speech” is beyond me. The author’s choice to focus on “hate speech” and “Jizzlam” from three years ago (before I was ever involved with the Koala) shows how weak their position is; they need to rest on highly emotional talking points with no discussion to support their positions.
Most laughable is the word “student” capitalized in every occurrence. When 70 students and community members attended the Oct. 26 A.S. Council meeting and overwhelmingly reacted against the council’s impending legislation, they were ignored by many members of the council. Why the word “students” is purposely capitalized to suggest a form of identity, yet real students are not shown the same attention is beyond me.
“Don’t let one person ruin SRTV for everyone”? With well over 2,000 signatures gathered to call this special election, I can proudly say that enough students feel this is an issue pivotal enough to risk “ruining” SRTV. The A.S. Council took SRTV off in the first place during a political talk show; instead of being slaves to every whim of the administration, it should have thought of the consequences of its actions in the first place as I had.
I encourage UCSD to come out and vote this week; if you ask those of us with the “Yes” side a tough question or criticize us, unlike our elected representatives, we will not pull the plug on you.
— Steve York
John Muir College alumnus
Bush ignoring American people
Dear Editor:
Is President George W. Bush, his administration or the Republican Congress responsive to the wishes of the American people? Recent surveys reveal that a majority of Americans (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. Sixty-five percent want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. Sixty percent favor repealing Bush’s tax cuts that go primarily to the rich. Sixty-six percent want to reduce the deficit, not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing defense spending or raising taxes. Seventy-seven percent think we should do “whatever it takes” to protect the environment. Eighty-seven percent think big oil companies are gouging consumers and support imposition of a windfall profits tax.
Are government officials responsive to the people of America? What is your conclusion?
— Milton Saier
Professor of Biology, UCSD
