— STAFF EDITORIAL —
Raising the right questions: inside the new SGA budget
Let’s be clear about this: We are not opposed to giving stipends to student leaders at Xavier University. We ourselves are given a stipend (in the interest of full disclosure, our highest paid employee, the Editor-in-Chief receives $5,075 per year), and we think giving certain student leaders a stipend is appropriate.
However, we wonder how appropriate the raises that SGA has passed for their executives are.
Ignore all of the obvious objections (Is this raise deserved? Is it necessary? Aren’t there more innovative ways to financially compensate student leaders?) for a moment and consider this: SGA represents the student body of Xavier University. One would have to agree that the Xavier student body would not support a budget that had more of their tuition dollars going into their student leaders’ pockets. By ignoring this reality, SGA is seemingly failing to fulfill one of their principal duties: representing the Xavier student body.
We understand that these raises are meant to adjust executive stipends to meet minimum wage. This makes sense, if you consider the positions of the SGA executives as “jobs.” We don’t see why the executive stipends couldn’t simply be viewed as getting paid $8,750 to do an extracurricular activity, rather than a “job” (that’s how we view it). We tend to think that if you consider serving your fellow students to be a “job,” you might be in it for the wrong reasons.
The timing of this raise is more than a little bizarre as well. SGA has had several major problems this year, what with their failure to book anything remotely resembling a major concert for the first time in years and the recent executive elections that were marred by voting irregularities, abysmal voter turnout and campaign violations. Doesn’t it seem a little strange to reward a ticket of executives that broke the rules to get elected with a pay raise?
Being a media outlet, we’re reasonably adept at identifying whether or not an organization is public relations-savvy. And SGA is absolutely one of the most public relations inept organizations we deal with on a regular basis. A free lesson in PR: using student money to give oneself a raise in the wake of a scandal-ridden election that caused a large contingent of the student body to distrust you is probably not a good idea.
So what do these raises give the student body? Maggie Meyer, the outgoing SGA president who so kindly proposed the executive stipend raise for her successors, suggested that raising the executive’s stipends would make them more accountable to the Xavier student body.
In our humble opinion, we think that this self-sponsored pay raise would be a lovely thing for SGA to hold themselves accountable to the student body for. As such, we encourage any and all members of the Xavier student body who are concerned about this pay raise to attend the Senate meeting on Monday, April 7 at 3 p.m. in GSC Room 214 and express your opinion to the student senate.
Because hey, you’re paying for their accountability, so you might as well get your money’s worth.
The art of the road trip
Andrew Chestnut
Editorial Columnist
For many college students, spring break is a pilgrimage in which Florida is our Mecca, and partying is our religion.
But for those of us with parents who won’t fund airline tickets to the Sunshine State, this means a lot of driving. At first, a 900 to 1,000 mile drive sounds like an imposing proposition. However, I’ve done enough long-distance driving to have developed a precise method that, if applied correctly and with the right attitude, can make the journey almost as good as the destination.
There are a few basic qualifications before a road trip can be a Road Trip. First, personnel: You must have between two and four people, and they all must be friends. The awkwardness of having acquaintances or less will kill the mood of any road trip, and having five or more people will make it unbearably crowded. Finally, you have to be going at least 250 miles (or two states).
The most important thing to do when beginning a road trip (after filling your gas tank) is get yourself in a proper state of mind. You’ll be stuck in a car—possibly the back seat—for a long time, so be prepared to enjoy the journey, rather than dwell on how close you are.
Music is critical to this process. If you’ve done your homework, you’ve already created a few playlists on your iPod (or burned a few CDs if you happen to be reading this in 2002). When constructing a playlist, try to match the style of music to your particular journey. When I went to New York, I had a playlist heavy on Frank Sinatra and Billy Joel. Over spring break, as I was flying towards Tampa, the emphasis was on the Beach Boys and Jimmy Buffet.
Another equally-valid school of thought concerning music selection is the “DJ-by-committee” theory, which entails the passing of an iPod from person to person—usually in some sort of circular motion—each choosing one song. Avoid this method if your friends have bad taste.
Anyway, try to stop as little as possible at first. Make it your goal to drive an entire gas-tanks-worth before refueling once. When you are forced to stop, try to stop at one of those huge truck-driver gas stations, then go inside and—after using the bathroom—look around at all the bizarre, random things you can buy. After having sat in a car for several hours, you’ll be in such a delirious, temporarily-insane state of mind that these things will be hilarious. You may be inexplicably compelled to purchase pizza-flavored sausage logs or Chuck Norris’ “Missing in Action 2” on DVD for $6. Don’t try to fight it.
This will be your first chance to stop for food. On road trips, I recommend a policy of complete culinary debauchery. McDonalds, Doritos and Mountain Dew are the premium options, while Taco Bell, sunflower seeds and Yoo-hoo are fine second choices. Be sure to supplement these with some supply of high-glucose content candy. It’s inexplicable, but eating junk food on road trips simply makes it more fun.
The worst thing that can happen on any road trip is an accident, so try not to get in one, because it’s a real downer. The second worst thing that can happen is getting a ticket from one of the many state highway patrolmen (or patrolwomen) who hide along the road, dying to catch a speeding red car full of teenagers and ruin your vacation with a $160 fine.
To avoid this, it is the person riding shotgun’s responsibility to look for squad cars. Study their habits and be vigilant, prepare to slam on the breaks at any time, and have a few canned excuses at the ready (“I was following this other guy who knows he’s going…”) to give yourself the best chance of avoiding a ticket.
The person riding shotgun has two other important responsibilities: (1) handing things to the driver/controlling music, and (2) handling directions. And don’t think that having a GPS navigator will eliminate the need for a directions person. Those things are almost as hard to use as maps.
And speaking of GPS navigators, I’ve determined that there are two things they need that would raise them from “fairly useful” to “best thing since the Internet” status. The first is if they showed a small pink pig icon for everywhere there was a patrolman running radar, so you could see when to slow down (which I realize would be illegal). The second is if you could change the voice options to different themes, like angry mother (“If I have to tell you one more time to take the next right...”), slave driver (“Be prepared to merge right, BOY!”) or William Shatner (“Re… calculating….ROUTE!”).
Clearly, road trips leave you with a lot of time on your hands to think about things like this. The last step is to come up with your own traditions to pass the time. One game my friends and I play involves hitting the roof of the car every time you see an abandoned car on the side of the road. Whoever hits it first gets a point.
The point is, make your own games and traditions, follow these suggestions, and do whatever you need to do to make driving the best part of your vacation.
— LETTERS TO THE EDITOR—
Getting the facts straight
In response to Dr. Wong’s recent editorial concerning President Bush’s veto of the “torture” bill, I would like to request the that professor focus on facts, not slanderous and misleading statements. Bush has never been quoted as saying torture is humane. In fact, Bush said, “Let me make very clear the position of my government, and our country. We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture.”
As the professor so eloquently noted, “All religions in the world condemn inflicting instrumental pain on others.” It is puzzling that Dr. Wong would reference religious texts concerning human rights.
The Qur’an states, “They are the ones who have disbelieved in the scripture, and in the messages we have sent with our messengers.Therefore, they will surely find out. The shackles will be around their necks, and the chains will be used to drag them. In the Inferno, then in the Fire, they will burn” (40:70). Clearly, this is an example of the Qur’an promoting human dignity.
The Bible also discusses neighborly love: “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed; for he that biddeth him Godspeed is a partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 1:10-11).
On another note, a common misconception held is that the bill focused solely on waterboarding. However, the bill encompassed six “enhanced” techniques: attention grab, attention slap, belly slap, prolonged periods of standing, cold treatment and the infamous waterboarding. Are these “inhumane” techniques? What if you knew that each of the techniques pale in comparison to what U.S. Special Forces soldiers endure in their SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training?
The Army Field Manual gives the 18 acceptable methods of interrogation. Without listing all of them, it mirrors the routine used by the police to obtain a court-admissible confession. How effective do you think the “good cop, bad cop” routine would be on a hardened al-Qaeda operative who is willing to sacrifice his life to do the work of Allah? How about yelling or rapid-fire questioning?
While Dr. Wong and the liberal media love to spin the facts in a negative light, it would have been nice to have all the information presented. Here are some key facts that Dr. Wong strategically omitted or misquoted:
President Bush does listen to his Attorney General, who holds the same viewpoint as Bush concerning waterboarding.
The Army banned the use of waterboarding in 2006.
The CIA banned the use of waterboarding in 2006 (Waterboarding can only be used on a case-by-case basis in which the Attorney General and the President agree.)
Interrogators must submit in writing for approval by the highest chain-of-command before using each of the six “enhanced” techniques.
In conclusion, Dr. Wong would be advised to research his topic instead of hastily spewing unfounded statements. I think that is an acceptable request for an associate professor, let alone the chair of the Criminal Justice program.
Matthew Lemp | ‘08
A different take on the food service provider
Brett Simmons, Matthew Mellon and Justin Cancelliere began their recent letter to the editor with the claim to be, “representatives of the student interest in the environmental and labor practices of Xavier University,” but neglect to explain in what capacity they exercise such representation.
Having been unable to ascertain this information on Xavier’s website, I can only assume that they hold no such official position, and as such are not truly representatives of the student body, but rather only of themselves.
Nevertheless, I feel compelled to articulate my opposition to each point expressed in their letter.
1. With regard to their expressed concern for the labor practices of Aramark, Sodexo and Chartwells, they cite the opposition of the corporations to the unionization of their employees, as well as the past need for Xavier students to fight for Sodexo to maintain “minimal labor standards.”
First, I find fault with the attitude that unions are an inherently good thing in every instance, and thus that it is morally reprehensible for corporations to oppose the unionization of workers.
Unions, by design, seek to maximize wages for their members while minimizing the obligations required to obtain those wages.
Thus, an effective union is one that is able to raise compensation and benefits well above their prior level while at the same time reducing the labor requirements previously needed to acquire those wages.
In this light, it does not appear to me that it is in the interests of the students, or indeed the university as a whole, to support the unionization of food-service employees, as doing so seems likely to raise costs and reduce service.
Secondly, the prior need for Xavier students to demonstrate on behalf of the “mistreated” workers puzzles me.
Why, for instance, is it that Xavier students were able to notice such deplorable working conditions before the very employees who were so gravely neglected?
In this modern American society, could it be that those employees feared reprisal from Sodexo if they had spoken up on their own behalf?
Frankly, I find that to be far from plausible.
Rather, it seems more likely that Xavier students, lacking more entertaining ways in which to piddle away their free time, seized upon the cause of Sodexo’s employees under the mistaken belief that they were in some way righting a grave injustice as yet unrealized by its very victims.
Finally, the writers note that, should the existence of a union prove too cost-prohibitive, then perhaps Xavier would do better to consider smaller food providers.
Considering that large providers have the infrastructure and purchasing powers to benefit from economies of scale (whereby large companies gain an advantage over smaller companies through their lower average costs), and that these students are so adamant that Xavier’s food providers permit (nay, require) a union, how is it that a smaller provider would be able to bear the same costs of unionization yet still offer a lower bid?
2. Being as it is that the writers appear to be rather concerned about limiting the costs of food service, how can they simultaneously come out in favor of “lower[ing] its (Xavier’s) overall carbon footprint”?
They note that the average piece of produce travels 1,500 miles, but neglect to consider the reasoning behind this statistic.
Obviously, no corporation which seeks to maximize its own profit would invest the resources necessary to transport fruit such a great distance unless it were somehow economically advantageous to do so.
Thus, one can only conclude that a) there exists a cheaper source of produce in a remote location than the one locally available, and b) that it is simply impossible to grow oranges, bananas and a great variety of other fruits in Ohio.
In the end, it is simply impossible to minimize costs if one is committed to reducing one’s environmental impact.
3. I could not agree more that every food provider on campus should be wholly independent from every other; in fact, I would even advocate a second cafeteria, run by a separate company, between which students would be able to choose which to patronize.
All this having been said, I have chosen to iterate my positions on these issues in the fervent hope that Xavier, its students and its subcontractors collaborate in order to provide the best possible service, keep costs as low as is realistic and afford all employees at this school satisfactory working conditions.
Peter Fricke | ‘11
“Missing Media” Again
Did anybody notice that the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War went by with barely any mention on campus this year? This is not the failure of any one social group, but of the entire student body.
Neglect of the Iraq War is best demonstrated when looking at the Newswire. This letter is the first opinion piece to mention the Iraq War in the past 19 issues of the Newswire. The last time Iraq was mentioned was on Sept. 12, 2007, when Ann Coulter was complimented on her “vast knowledge…on the war in Iraq.” In fact, the last three times Iraq has been mentioned in the Op/Ed section were all in reference to Ms. Coulter.
To find commentary on Iraq one must go back to April 25, 2007. In that issue, the Newswire editorial staff wrote an article ironically named “Missing Media” in which the board asked why so much coverage was put on Virginia Tech when people were dying in Iraq everyday.
I would like to turn this critical eye on our own Newswire and student body. Where are the editorials, demonstrations, protests, candlelight vigils, pamphlets, chants, signs and cries for peace? Since April 2007, 658 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives, putting the total amount of U.S. casualties at 4,011 lives. It is time we call for an end to the war in Iraq and an end to the senseless loss of U.S. and Iraqi lives. Most importantly, it is time we call for an end to the silence. As you may hear on campus this week, “Silence IS Acceptance.”
Will Durbin | ‘10
Katherine Monasterio
Op-Ed Editor
Submit a Letter to the Editor
The Xavier Newswire 3800 Victory Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45207-2129 On-campus location: The Publications House, 3739 Ledgewood Dr. Telephone: 513.745.3607 Advertising: 513.745.3561 Fax: 513.745.2898 Email: Kathryn Rosenbaum
Editor-in-Chief Nathan Sergio
Advertising Manager Full list of staff contacts www.xu.edu/newswire
