The results of Monday’s student fee referenda proved once again that students are rational, informed voters as opposed to gullible, helpless young children, as some university administrators describe them.
As an N.C. State alumnus observing this year’s student fee proposals from afar, I reached the very same conclusions as the current student body about the suggested renovations of Talley Student Center and the Atrium Food Court. Like the current student body, I agree that these student hubs need urgent and costly renovations, but I disagree strongly with the flawed financing scheme and dearth of information presented by University administrators.
Almost every student on campus has heard the sound justifications for expanding and improving the student center and the Brickyard’s Atrium. The buildings were constructed in the 1970s and lack modern conveniences and aesthetics. The University’s student population is over two times larger than it was when Talley first opened 37 years ago. Hundreds of student organizations are frustrated by the increasingly limited meeting spaces that continue to be converted into bureaucratic offices. The list goes on.
Yes, for all of the reasons presented by the University administration (except for the lie that renovations will “increase the value of [an N.C. State] degree”), the University needs to upgrade, rebuild and remodel the crowded places it has dedicated to student life.
But, as rational, intelligent voters, students were right to vote down Proposition 909.30 by 61.6 percent.
For beginners, it is politically unwise and economically unsound to propose such a substantial fee increase during a recession. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that almost 1 out of every 9 North Carolinians is unemployed — and that doesn’t include those who are without a job but no longer searching. Raising “taxes” for non-critical government projects during a prolonged period of financial instability for many families can only be hurtful. Students can’t even find part-time jobs to make ends meet in this economy.
Next to poor timing, the funding scheme recommended by the administration is incredibly inefficient and unjust. According to Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor Paul Samuelson’s microeconomics textbook, “The most efficient [tax] arrangement is to locate the tax and spending decisions so that the beneficiaries of programs pay taxes and can weigh the tradeoffs.”
The problem with the student center renovation project is that the assumed beneficiaries — future students — aren’t the ones making decisions about the project. Students today will vote for (or against) and pay for renovations that others will enjoy. Since we can safely assume that this project will go over budget and far past the projected completion date of 2013, administrators should instead seek to fund the project from state appropriations or private capital campaigns.
After all, what sensible student agrees to pay for something that will not benefit him or her?
Even with poor timing and a flawed funding scheme, I suspect that the primary reason students rejected paying close to $300 a year for renovations is the tawdry propaganda created by Student Affairs. A hip Rally 4 Talley Web site with smiling faces and no information is a turnoff to intelligent people. Using students who are salivating for future recommendation letters to run an administration-backed campaign is immoral.
I invite Charles Leffler, vice chancellor for finance and business, to inform the NCSU community of the thousands of dollars of University funds that were used for this “student campaign” and to tell us where those funds originated. The campaign’s chief “student leaders” were unable to explain how it acquired its resources yesterday and they suggested that I ask Mr. Leffler directly. Consider this an inquiry, Mr. Leffler, and a plea for the University to reject the Oblinger-Easley transparency standards.
Proposition 909.30’s overwhelming defeat should require administrators to go back to the drawing board and answer the backlog of unresolved questions about this future project. But, as a former student leader who knows all-too-well how these power-players operate, I can see the future clearly: an explicit rejection of students’ concerns.
Editor’s Note: The author, a 2007 alumnus and former Technician columnist, served as student senate president from 2005 to 2006.
