The first of many Sun God Planning Committee meetings is a
sign of things to come; whether that’s good or bad for students will be up to
A.S. councilmembers. Specifically, the council’s programming department will
decide what to do with the Sun God 2008 Planning Report, 22 pages worth of
inextricably muddied content. It will be a heady task, as that content is as
effusive as it is broad — every campus department had its say, and those voices
range from intense complaints to light grievances.
The filter to be used in prioritizing the flurry of
proposals is safety, council programmers say. It is the extent to which basic
safety bows to basic entertainment that is most at question; a stronger officer
presence encourages safety (and is undoubtedly supported by the campus police
department), but does it ruin Sun God’s free-spirited ambience? This is where
negotiation, bartering and back-and-forth dialogues will be key in preserving
students’ love of their treasured daylong event.
So far, the negotiating parties appear to have sturdy heads
on their shoulders. Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Penny Rue took a
much-appreciated stance against undercover officers during this week’s A.S.
Council meeting, supporting councilmembers’ sentiment that uniformed officers
would make Sun God safer, while plain-clothed officers lead to a backward route
of enforcement. Officials from the University Events Office have proclaimed a
“tied at the hip” partnership with council programming, which gives them
much-needed authority to rebuff complaints from administrative departments used
to strong-arm student voices.
Programmers, UEO and Rue are correct in admitting the near
unmanageable nature of this era’s Sun God. It is a colossal undertaking that
reared its ugliest angles last year, when entrance lines collapsed, ticketing
operations imploded and the number of arrests shot upward. The problems in 2007
heralded a perfect time to re-evaluate the festival, though it has opened the
floodgates to on-campus departments, allowing them to throw every stick and
stone at UCSD’s defining event.
Because of the report’s depth and breadth, the programming
department must be wary of its own boundaries and powers: What boundaries will
it set to festival changes, and what power does it have to snub departments
that believe their changes should take priority? The answers vary.
Councilmembers love to voice programming’s autonomy over its events, but
administrators have muscled past that “Students have rights!” argument before.
Baseline issues such as safety can give administrators a possible tool to
regulate Sun God’s basic operations — changing the date of the festival, for
example, is an unconscionable proposal. Yet another concern is the programming
department’s approach to marketing and advertising, part of its attempt at
changing the overall image of Sun God. But that image should be self-evolving
and self-perpetuating, not a product of UEO, programmers and administrators.
Though there are problems that require some form of
committee attention, and soon. The rising profile of nonaffiliates at the
concert is causing multiple roadblocks. While completely restricting
nonaffiliate access to the concert is extreme, it may be the only way to ward
off the shockingly violent behavior of kids that have no concern for a campus
that is not theirs.
So as the committee meetings progress, only time will tell
what our children’s Sun God will look like — hopefully just as fun, just as
community-oriented and just as wild.
