— STAFF EDITORIALS —
Sounding off
Something we probably don’t tell you enough is that by no means do we consider the Newswire to be our paper. It’s your paper; the newspaper of all members of the Xavier University community.
This week, we were incredibly excited when our letters inbox overflowed to the point of us having to fork over the extra cash to put out an extra-large issue.
And since we feel like we’ve done our share of mouthing off this year, we’re going to sit back and let you sound off this issue.
As much as we love telling you what to think, we really prefer it when you think for yourselves.
Join in the conversation. If these pages aren’t a forum for the readers—the Xavier University community—then these pages are just a waste of paper.
Below we’ve reprinted the guidelines for submitting a letter to the editor. So please, let us know what you think. How is Xavier living up to the needs of the students?
ow is it failing to live up to those needs? How is the Newswire serving it’s function? The possibilities are endless.
And we’re simply waiting.
Oops, we did it again
The Newswire would like to extend apologies to anyone who felt slighted, misrepresented or offended by last week’s April Fool’s insert, presented as a mock-newspaper by the name of the Xavier Repository-Guardian.
The stories presented in that insert were only intended to amuse and poke fun at various people, events and trends on campus, and were all in good fun. However, we recognize that what may be intended as an innocent joke can sometimes be misconstrued and push people’s buttons.
And so, for all those toes we stepped on, we offer our apologies, because we certainly did not mean to offend.
PDA: awkward turtle-style
Brandon McClain
Editorial Columnist
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a problem on Xavier’s campus. No, it is not the problem of parking, the huge discrimination lawsuit, or even the food service provider debate, it’s something seen on a daily basis. I am talking about PDA, not the traditional kind that’s cute and enjoyable, but the other kind known as Public Displays of Awkwardness.
Yes, awkwardness, something that is almost unavoidable in our human nature, but sadly enough, we don’t do enough about it to prevent our awkward moments from shining through. There are a plethora of awkward moments that are found here on a daily basis, but I would like to point out two specific examples of awkwardness that just take things to the extreme.
I know that many of you lovely people are in solid, working relationships and that you like to express your feelings on a regular basis in public. This is perfectly acceptable when it’s a peck on the cheek, a big hug, or even a simple kiss on the lips. My only problem with these displays of affection is when they go from cute to ridiculously awkward and startling.
The first example that comes to mind is when a lovely couple in line for some fries at dinner decided that in order to celebrate their newly acquired fries, they wanted to take 30 seconds to make out right in front of me. Now, at first I thought it was just a quick smooch, but no, it quickly turned into an awkward moment. I want to ask, why the need to make out because of some fries? I don’t want to know what you did after Xavier beat WVU in overtime, that would have been too much.
What other example of Public Displays of Awkwardness drives Brandon up the wall? Log on to www.xavier.edu/newswire, and link to the Opinions & Editorials page to find out!
It’s your life, so choose it
Madeline LaFave
Editorial Columnist
Dear pending graduates,
I’d prefer not to label you guys as a salty class but I’ve been hearing a lot of negativity from you lately. I get that some of you may not know what you’re doing next year—I mean, besides pay for your own phone bill (I know, I know it was a “family plan!”), and I can see how this may be a stressful time in your life: all of your friends seem to be leaving you, you will soon be poor, lonely and on top of that, everyone keeps asking what your plan is—especially your parents.
What you’d really like to do is lounge around all summer like you’ve always done, but the pressures of the “real world” won’t allow this.
Actually, you know what, pending graduate? I may be a mere sophomore, but that sounds pretty darn amazing to me.
Don’t roll your eyes, I can see how the never-ending questions can be frustrating, but just think, seniors (or should I say graduating seniors), for the first time in your life, rather than being told what to do, you are being asked. Rather than having your life mapped out for you as it likely has been for the past 17-plus years of schooling, you get to choose what to do next.
It’s finally time to do whatever it is that you want to do.
Granted, you probably will have to provide the resources needed for this task, but you will have huge newfound freedom. Think about it. Still stuck? OK, hypothetically, say you have at least enough money saved for a few months rent somewhere, yes? With this, you could pick a city, find a place to stay and find a job waiting tables at night, which will give you the resources of money, food, beer and a social network to start from.
If you spend the morning hours finding a “real” job, (resume, networking, research, interviews) and spend the evening hours working, you will be living the life in no time.
What is stopping you from starting anew and making your own mistakes? Maybe you will crash and burn, but this is life. Maybe I take the optimistic view because as a youngest child, I’ve always lived my life anxiously awaiting new and exciting upcoming opportunities and embracing change. Maybe I’m being naive, but I have a hunch that you will look back on this time later in life and realize just how amazing an opportunity it is.
I therefore challenge you, class of 2008, to view this time in a positive light. Choose what you want to do and do it—stop caring what everyone else thinks or what your friends have planned.
It is your time and you must embrace it. It is a rightfully selfish time in your life.
Utilize Xavier’s resources to aid your decision, make a plan and stick to it. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
It’s time to start living the life you’ve been preparing to live for the past 21 years.
Reviving recess
Mfreke Akpaninye
Editorial Columnist
Hello once again. It’s been a while since I last spoke to you, right when March Madness was kicking off. Speaking of March Madness, did you guys see the Championship Game with Memphis and Kansas? Not to be cocky, but if you check back to the issue from Jan. 16, I predicted the Kansas Jayhawks would be the National Champions this year. Booyah! (Editor’s note: He also predicted that the Patriots would be the Super Bowl Champions, but we all know how they choked it up against the Giants.)
I don’t know if anyone else has noticed but the weather’s been getting a lot nicer. The sun is shining and the skies are blue. The birds are singing and the flowers are blossoming. Most people would be pumped about all these things, but not me. I get really frustrated at this time of the year because school seems to take away from the fun and joy that arise with the warm weather.
I hate being inside for class on a nice warm day. It’s like a big tease, or like starving to death in front of a nice Chinese buffet. It’s times like these when I miss my childhood. I miss being able to go outside to play tag and four-square. I miss being able to lie in the grass and eat popsicles (OK, I still do that). Oh, the good ol’ days.
Which brings me to my bright idea.
Xavier University would make a lot of students happy if they implemented mid-day recesses during common hour.
Who could complain with the chance to play outside?
You’re all probably thinking, “What the heck, recess?” Just hear me out. I’ve got some legit reasons why we should have recess.
I haven’t been able to just drop all my obligations and be carefree and happy since elementary school. Playing games like tetherball and basketball on the blacktop can do wonders for your body and soul.
You can get fresh air and exercise. The freshman 15 would stand no chance.
Homework, tests and projects are such major concerns for all of us, but sometimes it’s all right to leave the library or your room for an hour to just get outside.
I’m also about 99 percent sure that the professors wouldn’t mind a break outside either.
I commend the teachers that are thoughtful enough to have their classes outside, but let’s face it, it’s just not the same. War wages in your mind as you grapple with: “Should I pay attention or should I look at the cute purple butterfly?”
Trust me, those are violent battles, but looking at the cute butterfly always emerges the victor.
As it gets warmer, embrace the outdoors and take time to relax.
Some students don’t have the luxury of a nice and warm outdoor scene (example: the University of Alaska or Oxford).
— LETTERS TO THE EDITOR—
Whose time is worth more?
I would first like to state that, in agreement with the Newswire, I am not opposed to giving stipends to student leaders at Xavier. However, while reading the article in last week’s Newswire regarding the recent increases to these stipends, I was quite surprised at how much the executives of SGA are making. I am one of the many students at Xavier who balances a full 18 hour course load with a part time job. I do not qualify for work study at Xavier, so I was forced to look off-campus for work opportunities. I found a job last year working at a local YMCA in an after school care program. I started 15 cents above minimum wage, making $7 an hour before taxes. I work nine hours per week, which does not include the half hour it takes me to drive each way. All in all, throughout the school year I make around $2,016. This makes for a very busy schedule, but work and school are both important to me.
I also work in the summer at a residential summer camp, meaning that I live at camp with a cabin of kids. It is an amazing and fun job, but a job nonetheless.
hroughout nine weeks of camp, working 24 hours a day, six days a week, I make $1,845.
When I read last week’s article disclosing the executive’s stipends, I decided to do a little calculating. I assume that the executives work year round like I do, so I combined my school year and summer salaries for comparison. In a year, I make $3,861. To make an equivalent amount to the SGA president, $9,500, I would have to work all summer at camp and then, during the school year, work 34 hours a week at the YMCA.
I work very hard and put a lot of time and effort into my job, which I am sure that SGA executives do as well. But my question is: why are their “stipends” so much higher than my salary? Do they feel that their work and time is somehow superior to other student employees on campus? Why would I have to increase the hours at my job by 40 percent to make a comparable amount to the president? I understand the amount of time and energy that goes into being an SGA executive and do not contest that the time and energy spent should be compensated. However, I do feel that the stipend should more accurately reflect what an average working student at Xavier makes.
Lindsey Brown | ‘10
Questionable coverage
As a Xavier alumnus and a former senator, I was very disappointed in the Newswire’s coverage of the new annual budget.
The article and accompanying editorial seemed to take great offense with providing hard-working leaders at Xavier with their first pay increase in 10 years.
That means that as the cost of school, living expenses and the SGA budget have all risen steadily, the executives and coordinators have not seen their pay increase.
Each year with no raise, they actually earned a smaller percentage of the total budget. If having stipends in the first place is not wrong, as the editorial admits, then how can updating them to track with economic realities be so offensive?
This was a budget prepared by an outgoing president and approved with no votes against it by a 20 member senate, only two of whom could expect increased remuneration as vice president and senate coordinator.
In their capacities as student representatives, none of them voted against this budget (Editor’s note: there was one dissenting vote).
Why weren’t these alarm bells rung by the editorial before the budget was passed? If this is so offensive, why wasn’t there debate when it could be meaningful?
While I respect the Newswire for divulging its own compensation information, there was no mention of how that has changed over the last 10 years.
I highly doubt that there haven’t been similar (and deserved) pay raises for Newswire staffers.
To begrudge other students for receiving similar fair compensation seems petty and destructive.
Blake Johnson | ‘06
Former SGA Senator
Really asking the right questions?
The Newswire’s coverage of the 2008-2009 SGA budget, which focused only on stipends, was an opportunity lost to shed light on the progressive changes that will affect all students next year.
The agenda of the one-dimensional front-page article, “SGA senate gives executives pay raise, budget examined” was clear from the on-set and very disappointing. The Newswire gave generous coverage to five students opposed to stipends, not to balance those interviews with any senator or outside students with the opposite perspective aside from President Meyer. I was shocked to see that the Newswire quoted me without an interview, only to contort my explanation of stipends given in an unrelated and outdated email written over the summer to Eddie Johnson.
Not only did the front page article seem agenda-oriented, but so too did the editorial, “Raising the right questions.” The article’s tone was offensive, calling SGA names that didn’t even make sense: “absolutely one of the most public relations inept organizations.” Beyond that sarcasm, however, was an ineffective message calling students to arms by encouraging them to attend the April 7 senate meeting to voice concerns about the SGA budget. Maybe better late than never, but if the Newswire was truly invested in seeking to change the allocations SGA made, that message would have been timely were it delivered before the budget was voted on and passed, a process that spanned over two weeks.
While I recognize that it is important to raise critical questions about how Xavier operates, the Newswire is raising the wrong questions. The Newswire should feel more of an obligation to educate students on how the other 94 percent of the SGA budget is being spent. Pre-Game Madness and Midwest Masala became line items, and O’Connor Sports Center will receive $33,643 next year to ensure earlier weekday hours and fitness trainers. Student clubs and organizations increased by $28,146.28, the Fine Arts fund increased to $7,500 and the Newswire increased by $6,000 to assist with color printing costs. SGA is spending its money responsibly and funding very exciting changes.
Last week, I sat through my final senate meeting at Xavier, yet I am still very personally offended by the Newswire for reasons bigger than its opinion of SGA, as our newspaper continually casts such a negative light on the university as a whole. Realize that sarcasm and negativity only breed sarcasm and negativity, and use your media to ask worthwhile questions and highlight the positive undertakings that build Xavier up as a community.
In five or 10 years, I want to open up the Newswire and read articles about our latest Final Four run on the front page, not a petty argument over stipends. I’ll hope that by then the Newswire will have put its grudges and negative agendas to bed and will be invested in leaving a legacy of something positive that makes every student proud to be a part of Xavier University.
Jennifer Downing | ‘08
2007-2008 Senate Coordinator
More than money
The Newswire under-reported the processes followed when Sodexo’s contract was last renewed. The “Not With Our Money” students raised concerns and Fr. Graham charged the Justice Across the Campus Committee with investigating. Basing our work on Catholic social teaching, which affirms the right of workers to choose to unionize regardless of what we think they ought to do, the subcommittee I chaired spent a semester meeting with Sodexo, “Not With Our Money” students, Interfaith Committee on Worker Justice, VP for Student Development, other Xavier officials, SGA, the union and workers; did academic research on NRLB elections and different card check processes. We also talked with JUSTICE and Jesuit universities that had terminated their contracts with Sodexo and read Sodexo union policies and the “Not With Our Money” website. Our report to Fr. Graham was hundreds of pages long.
Sodexo sold its stock in Corrections Corporations of America. It was required to accept card check—without neutrality—at Xavier and agreed to accept card check at other universities unless the universities opposed it. The union was given a deadline by which to have 50 percent plus one workers with union cards confirmed by a neutral third party or go away for some years—a deadline it met to become the collective bargaining unit for food service workers at Xavier. Xavier renewed its contract with Sodexo with the understanding that we would continue to have constructive engagement with them.
I am not an expert on food choices, but Sodexo manager Dan Yeager has responded to requests for local suppliers, organic foods, fair trade coffee and more recycling. I share your concerns regarding Aramark and Chartwells—and would like to know more about Sodexo’s role in Iraq—but I am much more comfortable with Sodexo than I was a few years ago.
Raise questions and concerns, but have a little more faith in the internal processes of a university where many of us take very seriously the Jesuit documents stating that the promotion of justice in the service of faith is an absolute requirement. Don’t be so quick to assume that the university only bases decisions on finances.
Dr. Irene B. Hodgson | Professor, Department of Modern Languages
Interim Director of the Academic Service Learning Semesters
Justice Across the Campus Committee
Satisfied with Sodexo
In reference to your article that appeared in the Newswire, week of March 26, I represent the union employees that are members of the UniteHere Local 12 chapter.
As a result of the union contract between Sodexo and the union, the majority of the employees are in favor of the union, mainly because of the benefits that we now enjoy, such as affordable health insurance, better wages and a union pension plan, with all funds being provided by Sodexo.
Each year when school closes for the summer, all employees are out of work; however, many of the Sodexo employees are dedicated and return each year because they enjoy their jobs providing service to the students.
The union has helped stabilize the workforce by entering into a collective bargaining agreement with Sodexo, which has made the employees a part of the business.
This is because of employee benefits that they now receive, that were unaffordable by employees who only worked eight months within a year.
We appreciate our jobs, and enjoy providing the highest quality of service to the students, and we are looking forward to returning in August, regardless of who the food service provider might be.
I hope it will be Sodexo.
Don Spell | UniteHere Local 12
The power of unions
Human labor is crucial in many ways for all of us. But as Pope John Paul II says in Laborens Exercens, “On Human Work,” human labor has value not just because of what it produces but because human labor is performed by the human person.
As labor priest Monsignor George Higgins often emphasized, labor unions have value not just for the protection of individual workers but to better contribute to Xavier, to the community, to other workers on campus and off. (See Economic Justice for All, Pastoral Letter of the U.S. Catholic Bishops No. 106. “Workers must use their collective power to contribute to the well-being of the whole community.” On Human Labor No. 20)
Labor unions are participative and democratic. If a labor union is not what it should be, it’s the responsibility of its members to make it better. Economic Justice for All, U.S. Catholic Bishops No. 103: “Frequently employers have greater bargaining power...The provision of wages and other benefits sufficient to support a family in dignity is a basic necessity...workers should have adequate health care, security for old age or disability, unemployment compensation, healthful working conditions, weekly rest, periodic holidays for recreation and leisure, and reasonable security against arbitrary dismissal.”
The food we eat has many connections. We are rightly concerned about the clothes in Xavier’s bookstore. Under what conditions are they produced? We should be even more concerned about the food that becomes part of us. Does the farmer get a fair price? Do farm workers get a just wage? Do those who process our food have safe and healthy working conditions? Are the animals we eat treated cruelly? Is the food that we eat healthy? Produced in a sustainable way that protects the environment? Xavier wants a food service sensitive and responsive to these issues.
One approach to Xavier’s present situation is to insist that the present union be recognized, whatever food service is chosen. Other things being equal, renewing the contract with Sodexo is safer for the workers.
Father Benjamin J. Urmston, S.J., PhD. | Director Emeritus of Peace and Justice Programs.
The red health care scare
I picked up a pamphlet titled, “I Want You to be an Informed Voter” in GSC. After reading the pamphlet, I was only misinformed. The College Republicans published the pamphlet with regard to universal, or in their words, “socialized,” healthcare, using the word “socialized” to scare all of the readers that the United States is going to have a communist revolution by supporting universal health care. That’s far from the case.
We do not have the best health care system in the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 47 million Americans without health insurance in 2006, about one in seven people. Save the Children, an international organization that ranks world infant mortality rates, ranks the United States as second to last in modern nations.
Adopting a universal health care policy does not mean lines and shortages. Any universal health care policy that the United States chooses to adopt will function similarly to our current system in almost every aspect, but we will not be denying people the right to medical care because of their income level.
Let me also remind you that we do have a socialized health care policy in the United States for the elderly—Medicare. We also have a socialized education system.
Every child, regardless of race, gender, religion, income, etc., has the right to attend school, yet those same children are deprived of the right to medical treatment if their parents do not have health insurance. Our government should support the health and education of every child.
Finally, as to the projected 15 percent tax increase, no one wishing to remain in Congress would support it. I’m not claiming that a universal health care policy will not raise taxes, but rather that we should value human life over money. For a political party that claims to be pro-life, to be anti-universal health care seems absolutely ridiculous.
If you want to be an informed voter, do your own research. Don’t trust a pamphlet that insults your intelligence.
Amanda Kazmierski | ‘09
TOP OF PAGE
Pamphlet presents problems
After picking up a pamphlet in GSC titled “I Want You To Be A Well Informed Voter!” I was disturbed to find such an ill-equipped source of information regarding universal healthcare. That said, my opinion here should not be viewed as an attempt to deliver the full, balanced perspective on U.S. healthcare, but rather a request that our community think critically about the issue.
In the pamphlet, distributed by one of the student clubs on campus, the concept of universal healthcare is presented in such a way that you would think McCarthy himself wrote it. If universal healthcare is called “socialized” healthcare, then why not everything else that is publicly run in society: socialized crime control, socialized environmental regulation, socialized justice?
The pamphlet describes the revenue made in health services as a percentage of the total income of U.S. citizens, which is calculated to 14.46 percent, and hypothesizes this to be the increase in tax collection from each citizen. One of the main arguments for a universal healthcare system contends that anywhere from 31 to 50 cents of each dollar spent in the current healthcare system goes towards administrative overhead costs, while a universal healthcare system with centralized administration would be less than 10 cents of each dollar (some argue even closer to three).
Overall, it comes down to the reality that our health system is not only the most expensive one in the world, but also one of the most ineffective. Preventative healthcare does not exist since we apply the competitive nature of a free market economy to our health, and thereby make the most money by making people sick and keeping them sick. Please see the “Physicians for a National Health Program” website (www.pnhp.org) for more information and statistics.
Julia Alexander | ‘08
Sodexo: unions and cost concerns
In regards to Peter Fricke’s letter to the editor, we would like to make a brief response. Justin is an active member of the Justice across the Campus Committee, Matthew is the treasurer of Fair Traders and Brett is the student representative on the University Climate and Sustainability Committee. Beyond this any claim to representing other students would be based on the subjective view of us as leaders.
We believe that unions provide an important counter to management interests, particularly considering the well-documented instances of coercion and fear of reprisal in some modern American work places. Unions by design must also confront the continued viability of jobs in a globalizing market and therefore cannot seek more wages for less work. Your demeaning of past Xavier student’s efforts not only affronts the rationality of such persons, whom we can give you information to contact, but the fact that a union was voted in requires a majority of employees. So in the absence of fellow employee coercion, there was a recognized view of the need for a union.
We should respect that choice until employees remove such a union. Corporations also experience what is known as diseconomies of scale, when their size actually makes management less efficient. Yet, even if supposed efficiency exists, there is no guarantee that the company can best meet the needs of a small, demanding community, especially in the absence of a competitive environment. When monopoly pricing is present, as it appears to be at Xavier, increased competition can lower prices and increase quality at the same time that concerns for sourcing are addressed. The key is making the quality of service both in eating and moral concerns match the product given. Simply because a cheaper alternative is available does not mean such a product should be used. This is much too simple an answer to a very complex problem. Additionally, there is little to no proof that it is impossible to reduce costs while being environmentally conscious. Perhaps it is difficult, but never impossible. Furthermore, although a firm’s revenue from one more unit of production equals its cost, welfare economics, which considers societal effects, would show this is not necessarily the socially optimal output.
We respect the opinions of anyone who disagrees with us and would be more than willing to meet outside the press to better register student concern and knowledge on the issue. The answers are difficult and the conversation is extremely important to addressing labor, environmental, and cost-efficiency concerns that our Jesuit values call us to constantly address. Lastly, we encourage any concerned members of the Xavier community to attend a meeting today at 5:30 p.m. with several Sodexho workers. They will be sharing both their concerns about the food services bidding process and their experience with Unite, their union. The meeting will be held in Alter 216.
Matthew Mellon | ‘09
Brett Simmons | ‘09
Justin Cancelliere | ‘09
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
