|
COMMENTARY
Five
tickets evolve into one blurred picture
Chris Bohle
As the race for
Student Government Association president and vice president comes to
a close today, it hits me just how difficult it has been to differentiate
one ticket from another in this year’s election.
Students have been bombarded these past few weeks with issues such as
community, tuition, diversity and involvement, all the while not knowing
exactly who is promising what.
Whatever the outcome may be, this election is shaping up to possibly
be one of the closest races for student body leadership in some time,
thanks to the numerous similarities among this batch of candidate platforms.
Community is no doubt an important issue, especially in a small college
town such as Boone. Several of the tickets endorsed more interaction
with the community, often times in the same form.
Both the Ryan Eller/Ezell Williams and Tim Young/Robert Rountree campaign
want to see a student placed on the town council, for example. Now this
is a good goal that will attract students, but since it is offered in
multiple campaigns, it makes the voter’s job difficult.
Tuition is an issue that must be touched upon by candidates in light
of the recent events, but in my opinion, does not matter much beyond
that, unless the candidates propose a truly innovative plan, which none
did this year.
What I mean is that of course the candidates will focus on the tuition
problem and attempt to end the trend—it is something that students
would like to see accomplished. But none of the five tickets proposed
anything different from the usual “keep tuition stable” mantra,
leaving voters up in the air again.
Diversity is one of the other major issues most often touched upon by
candidates. You aren’t going to find a pair of candidates who don’t
want to increase diversity obviously, seeing that Appalachian is nearly
94 percent white.
The Young/Rountree, Eller/Williams and Larry Smith/Allison Laffin campaigns
all have certain goals towards the promotion of multiculturalism at
Appalachian, but will students research it enough to figure out who
is promising what? We’ll have to wait and see.
Finally, student involvement is one of the biggest, if not the biggest
issue, that the candidates are focusing on.
Stephen Wussow and Dustin Bayard want students to be more active in
university affairs, along with Eller/Williams. Smith/Laffin also want
more student involvement as well as “higher student morale.”
Some of the tickets went into detail about how exactly they would accomplish
this, but will students notice this? Or will all of the issues be taken
at face value and the vote will be done by the random generation method?
I am not trying to say students are apathetic or disinterested because
that generalization is obviously foolish. But it has been shown in larger-scale
elections, such as the presidency of our country, that the younger voters
tend to be the least educated. Sometimes they may not even vote.
So even though most of the voting is basically over, I just would like
to say to the few voters who have waited until these final hours to
vote to make sure you have done your research. We are voting on the
student leaders of our university, so make it count.
COMMENTARY
‘Only’
$150 here, there is adding up too fast
Earlier this
month, the University of North Carolina Board of Governors rejected
the proposed $150 tuition increase that would have raised staff salaries.
When I first read about this I got all excited, thinking I might save
my parents some of their hard earned money.
That was until I read a little further down and saw that we are still
getting hit with a $50 increase plus the previously approved $150
hike anyway. So in the end, we’re still going to see a $200 increase
in our tuition next year. Great. Wonderful.
Before my poor brain had a chance to digest this, however, I looked
over to the next story in the paper and, oh joy, it seemed the statewide
tuition hike was approved, raising in-state tuition to a grand total
of $2470. Looks like it is time to put in a few extra hours at the
office; we’re getting our pockets cleaned out.
Let me backtrack a little. The proposed tuition hike, although still
money my parents do not need to be spending, was for a good cause.
The SPA pay rate is ridiculous. They deserve so much more. But, on
the other hand, it is not the student’s responsibility to pay
their salary, it is the state’s. It is not our fault the state
has failed in keeping up with pay raises. The proposal was a little
shifty in my eyes anyway- no one was quite sure to whom the money
was going exactly.
Does that seem a little wrong to anyone else? We would have shelled
out $150 with no clue who was going to get it, but that wasn’t
supposed to make us uneasy.
So we are still getting an increase, but it is for a different reason.
Yes, student financial aid and “instructional purposes”
are great things, but I think if we are dishing out more money anyways,
the school would have benefited more from giving the overworked/underpaid
SPA employees a little more money.
According to Chancellor Francis T. Borkowski, the SPA pay raise is
not going to be put on the back burner. In the end they may actually
get some money, but again, at what cost to the students? How much
more can the school ask from us? The university system is designed
for AFFORDABLE education. If the school can dip into our pockets for
this, what makes us think there won’t be a next time?
On a side note, I congratulate the (very) few students who journeyed
to the BOG meeting in protest of the increase. Although no ample warning
was given to allow students to get out of classes, it was still a
good thought.
In conclusion, I would like to address a recent letter -to -the -editor
in which it was suggested that The Appalachian spent too much time
worrying about an increase that is “only” $150. Well, $150
may not seem like a lot, but similar to what I mentioned before, when
are the increases going to stop? As of the 2002-2003 academic year,
tuition has gone up almost $1500 since fall 2000. Yes there have been
budget cuts and some of those increases were needed for new computers,
equipment, etc., but there is a definite trend beginning to rear it’s
ugly head at Appalachian. It needs to stop. Now.
OUR PERSPECTIVE
Dirty
politics
Current
landscape calls for issue-oriented campaign, capable leadership at SGA
helm
Non-student
friendly tuition hike proposals, an emerging debate over free speech,
steep initial estimates for student permit prices for the Rivers Street
Parking Deck and a state budget crunch that very well may trickle down
to academic programs define the current landscape facing students at Appalachian
State University.
If there were ever a year where one would expect an issue-oriented Student
Government Association presidential and vice presidential election, this
would certainly be that year.
However, the five duos pursuing the organization’s top two offices
have resorted to name-calling, finger-pointing and overall child-like
behavior since the campaign period kicked off last week.
Since that time some 20 elections violations have been reported, a number
considerably higher than year’s past.
“Each ticket has done something not in the spirit of campaigning,”
said Patrick Cash, chiar of both the Elections and Rules committees.
While we in no way condone such behavior, we recognize that a reality-driven
outlook reveals a certain amount of crooked shenanigans is unavoidable
in races such as this.
Instead of tackling issues that will improve the student experience in
and out of the classroom at Appalachian, the field of candidates have
spent a considerable amount of time consistently breaking clearly-defined
campaign rules and bickering behind the scenes.
“A lot of the complaining has been unreasonable and unprofessional
… ,” said Cash.
What began as a political race between 10 student leaders has degenerated
into an all-out mud-slinging session.
These actions spilled over into Tuesday evening’s SGA-sponsored debate,
as the issues laid out by each ticket were overshadowed by the growing
animosity that now obviously exists between a number of the candidates.
This publication and others have been critical of this incarnation of
SGA for a list of reasons.
In the past, we have challenged student government to return to a student-first
mindset.
With all 10 candidates currently involved in SGA, the events of this campaign
season (see related story, page 1) and the bad blood that has emerged
could very well carry over past the election, further bogging down an
organization that has had less than a stellar year.
Tuesday evening marked an opportunity for one ticket to separate themselves
from the field by showing their readiness to act as strong, honest leaders.
With campaign violation allegations stealing the show, that did not happen.
If this campaign season is any indication of how SGA will operate next
year, we see a turbulent and unproductive future in store for the Student
Government Association.
|
 |
 |
