To the editor:
On Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011, the ASI Senate passed a resolution to promote a tobacco-free campus. The resolution indicated that ASI would urge President Welty to create a tobacco-free policy for our campus. The resolution was developed by a senator, reviewed in our Legislative Committee and then forwarded to the ASI Senate.
As president of ASI, I felt that there were several issues with the way this particular resolution was passed. First, it wasn’t formatted like our standard resolutions. Second, it was not an informational item in the Senate before it became an action item, meaning senators had a limited amount of time to gather student opinion on the issue before making a vote. Third, it was vague as to what constituted “campus” ”” what about areas like the SaveMart Center, Bulldog Stadium, University Courtyard or agricultural fields?
Additionally, the resolution gave no indication of what the potential enforcement piece could be: will students receive a huge fine, or just a warning ticket for infractions? And can University Police even enforce such a policy given it’s just that ”” a policy, not law?
Finally, one professor in particular spoke to the senate regarding the resolution in a way I could only describe as bullying. The professor’s presentation also contained misinformation about the effects that the resolution may have on the campus.
Since the time the resolution was passed, the above issues have become clear, and many students have come forward indicating their dissatisfied with the decision ASI has made. Response and feedback have been so strong that a few senators who voted for the resolution have indicated they wish to reconsider the resolution now that they are aware of the discontent it has caused their constituents.
To this effect, ASI will be reconsidering the resolution to support a tobacco-free campus at our next meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. in USU 312/314. If you are interested in this resolution, whether you support or oppose a tobacco-free campus, please feel free to email your respective senators and/or attend the ASI meeting to make a public comment on the issue.
Selena Farnesi
ASI President
To the editor:
The “Occupy” movement pales in comparison to the impending collapse of Social Security and Medicare. These are the sacred cows which most newspapers won’t seriously investigate.
Bankruptcy of such federal schemes will cost university students in excess of one million dollars over their 40-year working careers.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is running for president, has correctly called Social Security, a Ponzi scheme; however his terminology needs to be refined.
Please study the technical analysis offered at www.SocialSecurityPonziScheme.com and understand the definition of “Ponzi Operation.”
Bill Cade
To the editor:
I really liked the article written by Maddie Shannon about bias in the news media. As she mentioned, she is a Republican; I must mention that I am a libertarian who is for smaller government and less taxes. But, it’s really dangerous to the American people how the news is “tossed” in the media these days.
The news does not remain objective when you call a courteous bow from President Obama to Hu Jintao “bowing down to the Chinese.” And you have audacity enough to call all liberals, “weed smoking hippie slobs.” I think we get enough false rhetoric from the politicians, so it wouldn’t be unfair to not expect it from the news media.
But is it really possible to deliver news without passing a judgement? I am not sure. But we can certainly expect a certain consistency. As an example, to stay consistent, if you openly voice your protest against Obamacare for being unconstitutional, you also should voice your protest against the Patriot Act, for it is just as unconstitutional. Until you do that, there is no difference between you and the politician who “spins” the real news and gives the public their own version of the story. I think we can and should expect more responsibility from a news channel that calls itself “fair and balanced.”
Sandip Roy
International Business, English
To the editor:
I am writing in response to the amount of coverage, or lack of coverage, regarding the Rally to Defend Education in the Nov. 9 issue. This was one of the biggest events in regards to student participation/attendance I have seen on campus since transferring here this semester, so I was surprised to see that the only coverage in the paper was a photo of Matt Shupe yelling out “Get a Job” with a small caption describing the photo. There was no mention of what the rally represented and what the students were there for. I was expecting at least some type of article relating to the event.
I understand that there was an article and video posted on the website that went into further detail on the rally and its critics, but online postings are usually a supplement to the stories in the paper, not the other way around. I feel like there is also a larger potential audience that would have read the article if it was printed in the paper rather than being online. What was the reasoning behind this decision?
Martin Torres
Response from Editor in Chief Ben Ingersoll:
The article “Occupy movement heats up on campus, worldwide” was submitted to The Collegian editorial staff after the publication deadline and was therefore featured only in the online edition.