Students shouldn’t foot bill for Union
I write today to urge the campus community to join with me in voting down the proposed Union Fee. Students currently are assessed a fee of $102.75 per year (spring, summer and fall) for use of the Union. Should this fee proposal pass, students will be assessed a fee of $249.75 per year once it is fully implemented. This represents an increase in the fee of ONE building by $147.00 (143 percent).
First, this fee is exorbitant, and coupled with the other tuition hikes/fees for next year, will burden already struggling students. The LSU Board of Supervisors already has approved the following TUITION increases for next year: $104 for undergrads, $208 for vet students and $500 for incoming law students. This does not include the proposal found in House Bill 1429 before the State Legislature. If passed, LSU will be allowed to collect an additional $100 per year for the Academic Excellence Fee.
Second, I can think of many other important things my money could be going to next year besides the Union. For instance, wouldn’t it be nice to actually have paper to take tests on in the College of Arts and Sciences? Or one could upgrade our classrooms, so beams do not fall through the roof and hit students. Or better yet, we could upgrade handicapped access around campus. The list goes on. The bottom line is there are many other priorities on this campus, and I do not believe the Union is one of them.
Finally, I think if the Union wants to upgrade its facilities, they should look to other funding sources. The LSU Foundation seems to be giving money away these days in the form of $100,000 interest-free loans to Chancellor Emmert. So I say to the Union — go get in line to see the loan officer at the LSU Foundation and stop putting your hand out begging for money from the poorest people on campus, the students.
Donald Hodge
Law Student
Former SG head supports Union fee
I remember distinctly Homecoming 2001, when I sat in the annual meeting of Student Government presidents from LSU’s past. One by one, they stood and recounted the achievement or memory that was most important to them.
One elderly gentleman told those gathered that while in office, he had toured campus unions across the nation and participated in picking the final design plans for the LSU Union. Today, he comes back every homecoming and spends most of his day in the Union — on this campus it is the place he calls “home.” His generation passed a fee equivalent to one-third of their total tuition to build what they envisioned as the core of student life.
Today, their investment still stands, and more than 70 percent of the student body passes through the Union every week. Almost every student organization or group on campus uses the facility over the course of an academic year — but the wear and tear on this historic piece of LSU is showing. Drastic repairs have been needed for quite some time, accessibility issues for disabled persons demand attention and many small student organizations lack simple supplies such as a copier, fax and telephone that would aid in their pursuits. All of these things and more can be addressed if this student body votes to approve the modest increase proposed on the Student Government ballot this Wednesday.
As a past Student Government president, it is my opinion that passing this fee is an investment in our present and our future. It is also a mark of respect for our past, and the sacrifices made by others that have provided more than 40 years of memories for thousands. Vote “yes” to the Union fee Wednesday.
Patrick McCune
Senior — Mass Communication
Union fee money will benefit all
On April 2, students have the opportunity to make LSU history by choosing to vote “yes” to the Union fee.
It is important to vote yes because a vast majority of students use the Union. Many students may not vote yes because of the additional costs. However, consider that 95 percent of freshmen and 72 percent of upperclassmen receive TOPS, which presently covers the $47 Union fee. The proposed fee will cost a May 2003 graduate nothing; a December 2003 graduate, $10; a May 2004 graduate, $30 and so forth until the fee reaches $60.
In 2002, 3,700 students responded to an online survey about the Union. Of these students, 25 percent said they would support a fee increase for the Union of up to $75, and 66 percent said they would support a fee of up to $50. The Union is the living room of this campus. Subsequently, it incurs a great deal of wear and tear. Meeting rooms are used all day; students sleep on couches and the remnants of our activities are left throughout.
If you vote yes to the Union, you will be able to leave a legacy for future students, your family and the community. In 1958, LSU students agreed to assess themselves a fee to build the Union, a building that would not open until 1964. In 15 years, without the fee, you could return to LSU and see longer lines to get food, use the restroom and make purchases. The Colonnade and Union theaters could have the same ugly upholstery, poor sound quality and crumbling ceilings. In the Tiger Pause area, where you can play pool, games and bowl, there could be the same worn, damaged facilities and non-automated bowling lanes.
You can vote “yes” on April 2 and ensure a brighter future for LSU by making the Union a better place. Students deserve better programming and student organization space and safe, accessible facilities available 24 hours a day. Although we may not see the benefits of our commitment immediately, it will be reflected in the students we attract, the programs we provide and the enthusiasm and pride we have in LSU.
Emilia Gilbert
Senior — Public Relations
Base columns on actual experiences
This letter is in response to columnist Peter Ragusa’s piece “Upping the Ante” in Monday’s Reveille. I find it confusing why Peter finds the anti-war movement gatherings threatening. The majority of these protests have been peaceful. Of course there will always be the rare few that will get out of hand, but these are minuscule.
In fact, I would like to cite the protest last Saturday at the LSU Lakes as a contradictory example. Before marching, the organizers of the anti-war protest made it clear no violence would be tolerated on their behalf. Then, of course, there was the “pro-war” side organized by [radio station] 93.7, which brought a biker-gang in hopes of intimidating the peaceful protesters. At this protest, the anti-war side kept their emotions at bay while the “pro-war” side yelled insults and otherwise tried to bully the opposition. I find this directly contradicts your point, Peter. And no matter how you put it, any limiting of the anti-war debate does equate violating free speech rights.
As a columnist, I would think you would embrace both sides’ rights to free speech, rights you yourself regularly employ. I find it disappointing for you to write a column, expressing free speech, without actually attending the local protest Saturday so that you might write from experience. If you had, I think your column might have read a bit differently. In the future you might try experiencing things firsthand before forming an opinion.
David Graham
Senior — Photography
Reveille SG debate coverage shoddy
In my three years at LSU, I must admit that I have been generally impressed with The Reveille’s coverage of the SG elections. By reporting on the candidates and their issues, it is at least a start to dissolving our obvious excess of apathy. However, I was disappointed with Friday’s article about the SG Presidential debate. As someone who was there, I do not feel it was an adequate summation of what took place.
For starters, the article disproportionately quoted some candidates while not quoting all candidates. The article made it seem as though some candidates were dumbfounded and clueless. While I do believe that the candidates could have better articulated some of their opinions, each candidate came with a distinct message.
Secondly, the article made it seem as if the serial killer and campus security dominated the debate. It was brought up on occasion, but I would say that’s a far cry from a “hot topic.”
I also found it interesting that the article did not mention the wide range of solid questions and comments from the audience that provoked discussion around the feasibility and likely implementation of each candidate’s platform. In an environment where Student Government struggles to relay its importance to the voters, I would have liked to have seen better coverage of the students that DO, in fact, care and want to hold our elected officials accountable.
Meryn Allen
Junior — Nursing