Our Opinion: The University is in a budget crunch, financial times are hard and the University must find the most cost-effective solutions to problems.

University Housing discovered carvings of the Confederate flag and the phrase “the South will rise again” in a bathroom stall door and wall in a men’s bathroom in Becton Hall Feb. 27, according to an e-mail from Jordan Luzader.

The door and wall with graffiti was refaced and the carvings were not visible, according to Steven Rodriguez, a junior in mechanical engineering.

Luzader, community director of the quad, decided to have the door and wall that had been vandalized reinstalled and charged $5.10 to every student who had entered the residence hall that day.

If the graffiti was not visible after it was covered over and it did not make students feel uncomfortable, why did University Housing officials feel the need to replace the door and wall in its entirety?

This decision was wasteful and a poor choice on University Housing’s part.

University Housing policies state “charges for loss or damages which cannot be assessed to a particular individual will be charged against the residential unit (floor or suite) responsible,” but just because students are responsible for paying for damaged equipment and property doesn’t mean University Housing should throw discretion out the window.

University Housing needs to know what it is like from the students’ perspective and find the best possible solution for each situation.

University Housing should have stuck with the most cost-effective solution, such as painting over the vandalism or covering it up in some way.

The bathroom walls are structurally sound. They served their purpose. The person in charge should have thought about it from the students’ perspective.

Though $5.10 is not a substantial amount of money, the last thing students need is another bill to pay on top of student fees and tuition. And this was just a one-time fee. Who knows how many times people vandalize property in Residence Halls, which could lead to more situations in which students who are not guilty would have to take on the financial burden.

This is about more than just one incident in Becton Hall. The University need to make smarter, more cost-effective decisions in the future and make sure the charges are fair.

Charging $1,100 to replace two walls of a bathroom stall is outrageous. The University is in a budget crunch and several students also are in tight financial situations. Nickel and diming students over finding the best solution is a problem, not a solution.