|
COMMENTARY
Comm. Department
in dire need of recognition
Sarah Newell
There are lots
of majors that have their own buildings on campus: science, business,
even technology. Then why is it that communication, a popular major,
does not have a building of its own?
We communication majors are forced to share John A. Walker Hall with
math, and Herbert W. Wey Hall, the deathtrap our school calls a building,
with art majors. Why is this?
Our major is just as worthy as all the rest, and if recent trends are
any indication, the number of communication majors will swell even more
within the next few years. Yet year after year we are denied a building
to call our own.
Among the many bond projects that are happening on our campus, not one
of them has any impact on the Department of Communication. No building
is being constructed for the sole purpose of being used strictly by
the department.
To add insult to injury, the number of classes offered to communication
majors every semester is simply not enough for the number of students
in the department. I have a friend who will be a senior in the fall,
and he had trouble getting into even some of the more basic classes
that he needs for his core, such as Communication Law.
Communication courses are some of the last that need to be trimmed in
this budget crisis. I understand that money is tight everywhere, and
every department has to cut down on classes, professors, supplies, etc.
However, given that this department is the second largest on campus
and shows no signs of the numbers dwindling, I think it would be prudent
to eliminate as little as possible from this particular department.
What bothers me the most about the communication department, aside from
the fact it seems we’re viewed as somewhat of a “lesser”
major, is the professors in the department get the shaft. They work
so incredibly hard, and really care about how well the students do and
if we really grasp the material they’re teaching.
Yet time and again I see them not getting the full appreciation they
deserve. They have to work long hours, either in the classroom or being
in their office for their students to come and see them.
Most professors are also on several committees or head up projects that
better the department, such as helping to coordinate internships for
the students or being the faculty advisor for the student radio station.
Yet they are incredibly underpaid, even when compared to other professors
in the North Carolina system. And it is an outrage they worked for the
better half of the fall semester without having contracts. It was almost
as though they were working for free. They should be commended for the
time and energy they put into their jobs.
The communication students here at Appalachian are very lucky to have
professors that care so much about teaching.
The communication program at Appalachian is nothing to scoff at. I think
it’s time the attention it should have been receiving all along
finally be paid to it.
COMMENTARY
Smokers should
not be punished for addiction
Shea Kuczko
- Staff Writer
Recent tax increases
on the price of cigarettes will increase poverty.
Currently in North Carolina, name-brand cigarettes are being bought
at prices as high as $4 a pack. Smokers in Texas are paying just under
$6 a pack and Tennessee residents found themselves paying $1.80 more
per pack as recently as one week ago.
These outrageous prices are due to the tax on cigarettes, combined
with the recent lawsuits that were lost by the major cigarette producers.
Many smokers are members of the middle and lower classes.
Specifically, lower class members who live paycheck-to-paycheck and
build cigarettes into their monthly budgets.
It is certainly not a secret that cigarettes kill. Contrary to what
most nonsmokers believe, smokers do not continue to smoke just to
be rude, smelly and self-destructive; they smoke because they are
addicted.
Does anyone really believe that this “sin tax” will miraculously
rid millions of Americans of their physical addictions? Smokers’
most vulnerable characteristic is being taken advantage of.
What if outrageous taxes were suddenly placed on unhealthy foods?
Isn’t it every American’s right to choose to eat unhealthy
foods? A tax on candy bars and other sweets is currently being considered
in several states because they too are regarded as a “sin.”
Can you imagine the exploitation that obese people would feel if their
vulnerability were used to punish them? And does anyone believe the
tax would promote fitness and healthy dieting?
Both taxes are violating, immoral and a threat to freedom.
Some believe the tax increase on cigarettes will in fact finally convince
some to quit smoking. It is, now more than ever, more economical to
simply invest in a nicotine set, the patch or a gum system. However,
you must consider the low-income smokers particularly in this argument
because it is perceivably more unaffordable to make a large purchase
at one time, instead of losing $4 a day to cigarette purchases.
Perhaps if health insurance would cover the expenses for smokers to
quit, they would feel more able to do so. It seems that it would be
a wise investment for the insurance companies themselves and would
benefit the smokers as well.
However, if this were ever incorporated into some health plans, many
lower-class smokers would continue to be robbed for their addiction,
since some are without health insurance at all.
The prices of cigarettes are simply stripping smokers of their rights
and exploiting their weakness. The increase in price will only make
an impact on the already tight budgets for many working Americans,
not on their addiction.
OUR PERSPECTIVE
Political
photo finish
The
recent Student Government Association election will go down in the annals
of Appalachian State University history as one of the closest ever.
SGA President-elect Ryan Eller and Vice President-elect Ezell Williams
edged out Steve Wussow and Dustin Bayard by a mere 25 votes in a runoff
race that followed an equally competitive general election.
“I tried not to make any predictions as to how close the runoff would
be, but given the first election, I didn’t think it would be a landslide,”
said Eller, the new president-elect.
After a year that has seen a stagnant SGA senate turn out little legislation
and the political damage Eller and Williams incurred during the campaign,
we feel the duo kicks off their year in office facing several key challenges:
The
political photo finish reveals student-voters were not presented with
a clear choice they overwhelmingly felt could effectively lead the Appalachian
student body. With just six percentage points separating the top four
duos in the general election and the less than one percentage point margin
of victory in the runoff, students did not hand the victorious Eller and
Williams the same kind of overwhelming mandate received by the current
Harrington-Privette administration.
The current president and vice president received 59 percent in last year’s
race.
However, aside from a very small faction of organized, initiative-taking
senators, the SGA senate has turned out little legislation under the leadership
of Harrington and Privette. That fact shows a larger mandate does not
always translate into a successful tenure.
CAMPAIGN HANGOVER
Leading the student body with such a minuscule mandate will not be the
only campaign-spawned obstacle Eller and Williams will face next year.
The general election was dominated by campaign violations and widespread
bad blood among the 10 candidates and their respective staffs.
We challenge those involved to set aside this political tension and not
allow the animosities of a highly corrupt campaign to carry over and create
a scene resembling a volatile political landmine field in next year’s
legislative landscape.
The level of bickering that pervaded the campaign will only lead to an
organization that resembles the current almost-dormant incarnation of
SGA.
As a representative organization, those involved must be able to set aside
personal conflicts and work to improve and bolster the student experience
at Appalachian State.
With
a list of motivations at work, several defeated candidates and members
of their respective staffs cast aside vast ideological differences and
backed the Wussow-Bayard tandem’s efforts in the runoff.
A close look at the current SGA landscape shows the very real possibility
of the development of a major political rift that could divide the organization—and
the senate—into two or more factions next year.
We call on those who were involved in the campaign to use the remainder
of this year to work out their differences so next year does not become
a year that sees SGA marred in a nine-month campaign hangover due to the
ill-feelings generated by the campaign period.
|
 |
 |
