Friday, February 22, 2008
Remember last year, when we had to raise our fees in order to build a pot of money so that the university would be convinced that we wanted to see Lower Sproul redeveloped, even though the money wouldn't really do anything? How we had to pass the fee in order to have a voice?
Josh Daniels, last spring:
Perhaps the most important aspect of this referendum, however, is that it gives us, the students, true power over the process and composition of the redevelopment. This referendum gives students the power to discontinue the fee if the redevelopment "process has either not been inclusive of the needs of the student body or they perceive the campus administration has ceased active participation in the redevelopment." This gives us additional power and protection just in case things do not go as planned, which is particularly important given the turnover rate of students.Imagine that. Even though the referendum failed, the planning and fundgathering is still going ahead, and, according to Josh Daniels:
In the world of the administration, money talks; more appropriately, those who pay get to talk. Since students will pay the money, we will get to talk. This holds true regardless of who is in the administration or what the administration's priorities are. If they walk, we walk. In fact, if the planning is not favorable to our priorities—i.e., student priorities—we can walk first.
Graduate Assembly President Joshua Daniels said he believes that the campus would not have provided the funds without the student officials' lobbying efforts.But... but... how could we effectively lobby them without our fee increase!!?? I guess money doesn't talk, after all. Whining does.
Of course, anyone who understood anything about how the university administration works knew that Daniels was wrong way back in 2007. I imagine Daniels did, too, and just lied to the student body, but maybe he was just ignorant. Whichever it is, we should keep this in mind the next time he comes up with one of his brilliant interpretations of reality. ("Boo hoo... Don't ask us about our responsibilities to the ASUC... they make us uncomfortable. Just keep giving us money without strings. It's fairer that way.")
The university doesn't have the balls to do what seems sensible on its face: Tell the student body to put its money where its mouth is. The university listens to the students when the students whine a lot. This is independent of whether the students have any legitimate claim to a voice, such as through the fee. Students claim that legitimacy regardless, and the university isn't going to tell them "nuh uh, we don't have to listen to you!" They think that, of course, but they'd still think that even if we passed the fee.
In other words, both sides would have the same situation regardless of whether or not the fee had passed. The fact that Josh Daniels claims he just didn't know sounds ridiculous, considering his position as a direct negotiator with the administration.
. . .
. . .