Dear Editor,
This is regarding the coverage given to the proposed quarterly campus activity fee (‘Council Taps Students for Referendum Support,’ Jan. 12). Last Thursday’s article fails to mention the actual cost to students due to the referendum fee increase. The $19.82 increase actually raises the total campus activity fee to $47.82 per quarter. This represents more than a 40 percent increase to existing fees, and an overall yearly campus fee of $143. I feel this point would certainly give context to readers trying to make an informed decision on the referendum.
Additionally, of the 21 paragraphs devoted to the subject, there was not one single argument made against the proposed fee increase, and no mention of its impact on students already facing skyrocketing tuition. Besides having no dissenting views, there were seven (by my count) different comments taken from A.S. Council and Student Organization representatives. Does the Guardian rank worse than Fox News in giving a voice to dissent?
Lastly, one key argument made in favor of this fee increase was to put toward a sustainability effort. According to the article, ‘the referendum goes to supporting the environment with a sustainability resource center … would be another main beneficiary if the referendum passes.’ This ‘main’ beneficiary of the referendum is actually only $2.34, or 11.8 percent of the total proposed increase. An argument can definitely be made on how 11.8 percent certainly cannot qualify as being the main focus of any issue. I find it insulting that the Guardian would use my (and my fellow UCSD students’) love for the environment as a cheap tool for passing this dishonest and poorly-drafted referendum.
If the Guardian represents ‘The Student Voice Since 1967,’ you effectively silenced it last Thursday.