by Sonia Mohammed
What did the conservatives, environmentalists, socialists, and minorities on campus have in common a few weeks ago? Their desire in combating the fee-happy mentality evident in drafting the Waller Creek union proposal.
The Build the Union Committee (BUC) wanted students to subsidize this fiscally irresponsible proposal to build another student union on Waller Creek, at the tune of 16 million dollars. We the conservatives claimed a major victory by defeating this proposal, capturing 73% of the 'no' vote (2,729 students). Only 26% (982 students) endorsed the tax-and-spend proposal.
The Young Conservatives of Texas (of which I am chairman) initiated the efforts to reject this proposal. We launched a highly successful ad campaign, having created and distributed over 5,000 fliers to encourage students not to accept the BUC's frivolous spending agenda.
However, even though the BUC's efforts were rejected 3:1, they refuse to believe that students could actually deny them the funds for their pet project and have suggested bringing the issue back to the ballot for another vote in the near future.
Seeing that the BUC is in a state of denial, maybe they need an outline of the reasons why we axed the proposal the first time around. We've already told them that we won't tolerate such a taxing plan, but we'll explain it once more before they attempt to initiate another referendum.
As if current tuition and fee costs weren't draining enough, an additional $29 per student/per semester would have been added to the already lengthy list of fees imposed by the administration. The committee mislead students by asserting that we'd have to bear only 50 % of the $32 million dollar project. They claimed that administrators and alumni would have provided the other $16 million. However, that other half rightfully belongs to students anyway and would be used to fund worthy academic endeavors if not for this proposal.
Disturbingly, administrators weren't the ones advocating this additional fee. A small group of self-serving politicos were trying to fulfill their resume-padding agendas.
If students hadn't emphatically voted against this referendum, they would have sent out a message to administrators that they don't mind having a costly education.
Proponents of the initiative, namely BUC Chairman Prescott Caballero, wanted you to believe that a new union was an absolute necessity. We can't even maintain the operating costs of the union we've already spent millions constructing and renovating! This is evidenced by the plan to cease the operation of the Texas Union Film Program. The Texas Union currently presents an array of both new and old films at their theater. Because there aren't enough resources to keep up with its operating costs, the theater will be shut down after this semester. Students are currently rallying alumni and administrators to find money to save this program, and there was a proposal to build a new union? If there's such little support for the union programs we already have, there's absolutely no assurance that this new union would have been able to sustain itself. It's likely that history would repeat itself and produce a fiscally insecure and therefore risky enterprise. It would have been financially devastating if students opted to build this union and then discovered that $32 million dollars wouldn't be enough. Where would we obtain additional funds? More fee increases?
Another reason why students voiced their opposition to this proposal is so that we can save Waller Creek. If this referendum had passed, we would have said good-bye to the few trees and flowers we've saved in that area. I'm no environmentalist, but Waller Creek is truly beautiful and it's one of the only green places we have left on campus. The aesthetic benefits of keeping Waller Creek truly outweigh any benefit that can be derived from cramming in another massive building on this already congested campus.
Efforts shown to support this proposal were completely misguided. Instead of making improvements on the services our school currently offers, this proposal only added to the costs of receiving a quality college education. There have been tremendous fee increases just this past year. In the College of Liberal Arts, at least a $15 fee has been added to every class in all 39 departments. EVERY CLASS IN ALL 39 DEPARTMENTS!! The Communications school introduced a $16 per credit hour technology fee. There isn't enough money to sustain our academic needs, and the BUC wanted each student to pay an additional $232 per four year college career to house another Wendy's?
Proponents of ethnic diversity claim that rising costs of education are preventing minorities from attending the University. If we want to attract students by offering an affordable education, we can't let special interest groups like the BUC demand like they did that students fund their tax-and-spend agendas. Although the walk to the union from the Engineering school might be a bit strenuous, it's not too much of a sacrifice to make in light of the $32 million dollars we saved by voting against the proposal.
Fees generated should be used to fund academic pursuits, not subsidize private corporations. If there's a genuine desire for another union to foster a sense of community, like Caballero suggests, then franchises can pay for their own facilities. Why should students pay restaurants to set up shop when companies would gladly welcome the opportunity to provide their services on campus and pay the operating costs? This union could be completely privatized, but the indolent BUC demanded that students contribute to a corporate welfare fund.
This fee would have done absolutely nothing to better our academic environment and never addressed other costs that are becoming an overwhelming burden upon all students. Is tuition too cheap for you? Is the line to use a computer at the Student Micro-Computer Facility too short? Do you find parking easily? Are you satisfied with the "health care" provided at the Student Health Center? Are your professors overqualified? Surely not! It's evident that the administration misuses and misappropriates the fees that we already give them as well as the grants provided by alumni. Having voted in favor of this proposal would have only produced the traditional inefficiency in student services that we already witness and deprive us of much-needed financial resources for worthier endeavors.
We are ecstatic that this preposterous proposal died such a miserable and humiliating death. We've shown the Texas Union Board of Directors that hell will freeze over before we allow them to subject us to their tax-and-spend agenda. Maybe now special interest groups will realize that they can't force students into funding their delusional agendas without expecting a fight from the right.
Mohammed is the Chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas, Managing Editor of Contumacy, and a government/philosophy junior.