Author Archives: Letter To the Editor

Letter to the Editor: When they came for the Regatta

By |
Dear Fellow Students,
My name is Aaron Ferri and I am writing to inform you about a terrible injustice that is taking place on campus. The Roth Pond Regatta, one of our most beloved campus traditions, has recently been stolen by our infamous USG. This is only part of a recent string of student government led seizures that have taken place this past year. I am writing to you all not only as the former President of the Regatta, but also as a concerned member of our community.

Although many of you may not know this, until this year Roth Regatta was an event run by the Roth Pond Regatta Club, a recognized student organization. However, last year saw the passage of the Office of Student Life, Programming and Activities Act. This controversial piece of legislation took many of our treasured campus traditions, including the Regatta, and put them in the hands of SPA, a newly established branch of USG. Those of us who had poured countless hours into establishing these traditions were never consulted or even formally notified; we were simply informed the following year that a club that we were extremely passionate about now belonged to USG and that we had no say in the matter.

The justification for this take over was that USG would be able to open the planning of the event up to a larger segment of the student body and that the planning would happen more efficiently if handled by a central authority. As to date, with the event less than a week away, neither of these two goals have been met.

At least as a club, membership was open to the entire campus community, and anyone who has attended a Regatta knows that it was a well run event—which brings up the age old adage, “don’t fix what isn’t broken.” Although you may disagree about whether USG is the proper entity to run the Regatta, I feel the more important question is this: what right does USG have to take over a student run club? Yes, in a democratic system, people must capitulate to the will of our duly elected representatives, but is there to be no limit on how far government can go?  At what point does democracy lead to a tyranny of the majority? Shouldn’t a democracy have some checks on what it can and can’t do? In our case, we aren’t even talking about a majority, but rather a select group of overzealous students who take their jobs way too seriously. I say “jobs” because the Office of Student Life, Programming and Activities Act allows the SPA to pay themselves for stealing our traditions.

In all fairness, I am generalizing a bit, and I know several USG members who have done a terrific job of establishing a sense of community on campus. USG is simply piggybacking on the years of groundwork laid by others, and I think it is time that we as students take a stand. USG is meant to look out for us, not dictate to us what we can and can’t do as students. I have filed a brief against USG, but am hoping for the support of the student body as well.

Students of Stony Brook beware, for first they came for the Regatta….

Sincerely,
Aaron Ferri

Letter to the Editor: In the Last Few Weeks…

By |

Dear Editor,

In the past few weeks, there have been serious accusations made about my ethical conduct and about my competency in the position of Director of the Student Programming Agency (SPA) in general. I am of the opinion that the bulk of these allegations are a result of willful ignorance and corrupt personal interests.

However, as the campaign surrounding these accusations has been made, my only option is to address each claim, provide my reasoning and then surrender myself to your sense of fairness.

I would like to begin by acknowledging a general lack of events programmed by the SPA this semester, which is the direct cause of various factors. Primarily, the SPA is a new agency, without any formal channels of communication to any entity, within the university or outside of it.  In the past few months, I have established or improved relationships between the USG and Athletics, FSA and the Staller Center.

By connecting to each of these entities, I have created opportunities that previously did not exist, such as USG working with Athletics on events and promotion, the FSA on retail opportunities, and Staller on scheduling events. None of this existed before me, and presumably, none of this would have been established if the previous model of SAB continued to exist. While the work I have put into establishing these relationships is not automatically obvious, it will be next semester when we have events in Staller—something never done before—as well as free concerts that would not have been possible previously.

It is difficult to program large events on a time crunch. Typically, a concert takes at least 8 to 10 weeks of planning. I began in September, and thus it reasonably took until mid-November to execute USG’s first concert, which happened to be quite successful. In the time from September to November, we programmed several smaller events, including a performance by Christian Finnegan, the MaMa Art Show, RockYoFaceCase and Humans vs. Zombies. Further, I personally do not think frequently planning small events is the answer to the problem.

There are many small events every single day at Stony Brook, planned by a student club or university department. While it is fun to have these kinds of events, small events should not be the goal of USG. Rather, USG is the sole group on campus that has the ability to plan large events, and USG ought to primarily plan large events.

To compare to the old SAB, how many SAB events were reported on by the student newspapers? And to the readers, how many of you miss the SAB Dollar Parties? How many of you can honestly say you attended an SAB event in the past few years?

The USG has not planned events according to its potential, but, in comparison, the SAB of old planned no events according to its potential. And I suspect none made it into the student newspapers. Our consistent listing as one of the unhappiest campuses is proof, to some degree, of the failure of the old SAB.

The other major accusation that has been made is that, somehow, I have too much control over the money or decision making within USG. The problem is, when you are one of the very few students doing anything within the USG, you happen to be more susceptible to criticism. For example, most USG presidents did not do a single thing in office, as such, there is very little to criticize.

Currently, there are about 30 students working together to plan events for next semester. When I began there was one: myself. I have slowly built up an agency from scratch, planned more successful events than the old establishment and have gotten a large number of students involved with the process. Next semester is going to be amazing, and it legitimately required a semester of planning, something that this fall we simply did not have.

Sincerely,

Moiz Khan
USG Director ofEvent Programming

Letter to the Undergraduate Students: We (Stony Brook) Failed

By |

Dear Undergraduate Students,

Although I was elected to the position of executive vice-president of the Undergraduate Student Government (USG), shortly after taking office last May our treasurer unexpectedly resigned.  This required that I additionally serve in the capacity of acting treasurer until one could be elected this fall.

At first, I was met with what could be best described as fear, from various student leaders and campus administrators, that the USG would crumble to its knees without a treasurer.  President Matthew Graham and I developed a near-seamless plan to address these concerns and a vast majority of clubs have noticed that our service has improved tremendously over last year.

In addition to maintaining the club funding processes, these last six months have given me an intimate knowledge of the USG’s financial situation, one which has brought to light more questions than answers.  Last spring, the USG Senate appropriated an unprecedented amount of funding towards student organizations: 57 percent, or over $1.5 million of our annual $2.8 million budget.  I quickly learned, however, that this new baseline for club funding did not come without consequence.  The USG’s operational budget, which includes services such as event programming and free one-on-one tutoring, were at risk of running out of funds mid-year without cutbacks.  In order to allow for improvement in these services, I condensed every USG operational budget line looking for funding that could be re-appropriated.

After the budget had been stabilized, the USG began to feel the pressure of somewhat opposing goals: the desire to provide more direct programming and services to the student body, USG-funded student organizations demanding more funding, and over 20 new clubs seeking to join the over 160 organizations who receive funding from the USG.  To ease some of these pressures, the USG voted to place a referendum on last week’s election to raise the Student Activity Fee by $5.75 to $100 per semester.  In retrospect, however, it may not have been the most prudent of decisions to increase our coffers without first addressing the real issues at stake.

First, this campus is over-saturated with student groups.  While admissions loves to boast to prospective students that we have over 300 student-run organizations, how many of them actually are providing benefit to the student body?  We have fostered a culture on this campus to start a new organization because of the smallest e-board dispute or the need to pad a resume with “leadership experience.”

By allowing groups to multiply like this, we have established mediocrity as the status quo for student life.  If trying to book a room on this campus is any indication, a plethora of meetings and events are going on any given day of the week.

However, a quick stroll through the SAC reveals the real issue at hand: speakers are talking to audiences of 25 people in a room that can hold 80.  With so many groups sharing a similar purpose, we have narrowed the audience that any one group can attract.

Second, the lack of fluidity in the USG budget stifles innovative programming.  The days of appropriating budgets of over $10,000 to organizations needs to end.  While a select few need to have these large budgets due to the fixed costs necessary for their operation, the overwhelming majority does not.  An interesting phenomenon that I have noticed is most clubs frivolously spend a large portion of their budget during the months of March and April.  This spend-down is practiced by most clubs after realizing they will have extra money left in their budget at the end of the year.

Is this wasteful spending teaching fiscal responsibility?  Hardly.  We need to get rid of this notion that in order to have a successful club, it needs to have a large budget.  I have seen more organizations do more with less money because they are forced to make decisions about what purchases are important. Instead, I propose that we place a substantial amount of this misappropriated funding in a budget line for grants, so that clubs may request additional funding as necessary.  This lowers the risk on our investment, allowing the USG to dynamically adjust funding instead of it being locked up in a budget line for the entire fiscal year.

Regardless of the results of the referendum, the USG’s laissez-faire approach to club oversight must end.  We were elected by the student body to ensure the Student Activity Fee is spent appropriately.  While I cannot speak for the past, during my time in USG we have made great inroads in fulfilling this mission, but a lot of work still needs to be done.  However, the USG is not the only one responsible for this mess.  We, as a campus, have put quantity over quality and this, in my opinion, is the biggest cause for the feeling that Stony Brook lacks student life.

Good luck on finals,

Alexander Dimitriyadi
USG Executive Vice-President

Addressing climate disruption

By |

Dear Editor,

I attended the first hour of the “Time is Running Out!” debate held last night in the Humanities Institute, held as part of the Provost’s Lecture Series. I found the debate depressing, but not because our time is running out on addressing environmental degradation and climate change, as the event’s title rightly pointed out. I found it depressing because the debate panel suggested the same depressingly ineffectual ‘solutions’ that are keeping us from making any real progress – carbon trading schemes, which are Madoff-style schemes to manage dangerous atmospheric emissions, and better communication of the scientific issues – while touting the centerpiece of the evening – motivating young people to get involved, which given the University’s recent history is just ingenious.

I won’t address carbon trading. Anyone who believes that free market Ponzi schemes will solve our problems after the debacle of the last two years is nuts anyway.

I also won’t address the need for better communication of scientific findings since that works just as well for both sides of this issue. Responding to the deniers’ misinformation, frankly a crime against humanity at this point in time, with climate disruption evidence will only result in further mistrust of either scientific position in the non-aligned public’s mind, while it will do nothing to change anyone’s established position on the issue.

But what I would like to address is the motivation of young people that Dr. Bowman raised, since this offended me.

Dr. Bowman and I had sat together at the last Stony Brook Council meeting during which it agreed to retroactively support Dr. Stanley’s decision to close the environmental sustainability programs at Southampton, where I was teaching environmental ethics, and move the programs to the main campus. The administration argued for the move by explaining that it had to cut expenses due to its on-going budget cuts, and moving the programs would result in $6 or 7 million in savings per year once the faculty’s contracts were allowed to expire.

Dr. Bowman supported this cost-cutting move of the programs to the main campus. The result was devastating to the students involved – several hundred motivated students who were in the process of dedicating their lives to addressing the issue of environmental sustainability – the result of which has seen the majority of them leave this university, or change majors. They were smart people and they got the message: immediate dollars and current politics will always win out over environmental concerns, so why bother?

Stony Brook’s performance in motivating young people to get involved is definitely deeply in the deficit column. If this University is truly serious about wanting to get students actively involved, then it is incumbent on it to make a strong and public show of support for the displaced sustainability majors by properly funding them and making them permanent. And the administration should take seriously the claim of the faculty and students that were involved in those majors, that the educational environment in which the programs are offered needs its own home.

I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but I see how other first-rank universities are directly addressing the issue of environmental sustainability by either offering comprehensive permanent curriculums or by funding separate schools dedicated to it, and Stony Brook, frankly, lobbed itself back into the stone-age through its recent handling of Southampton.

Dr. Bowman is correct – time is running out. So let’s get serious about this and stop playing political games and making shortsighted budgetary tradeoffs. Frankly, they too are a crime, given the dangers we face.

The first step in motivating students to get involved is to show them what real action is – let’s lead by example!

Sincerely,
James M. Corrigan

Letter To The Editor: USG Fails

By |

By Sean Cortes

On Nov. 18, the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) at Stony Brook passed one of the lamest resolutions.  All these semesters, these wannabe politicians were butchering about bringing new changes to the new club funding process.  The only change I found was the addition of 800 signatures by the student body to be eligible for the funding.

The other changes were not surprising at all.  In their usual fashion of promoting nepotism, the VP clubs was empowered to rule out and in new clubs.

This took a total of three months for the student activity fee sponsored mafia to literally make no changes.  I question why would they stall the new club funding when they were not doing anything really.  And with all honesty, I do not find any logical explanation for the addition of some x amount of signatures.

The mafia is condescendingly ruling the empire as their own little thing.  These patrons are exploiting the fee we did not even agree to pay in the first place for their own personal benefits.

The USG should be brought down and tore into pieces in my humble opinion.  They have continuously failed to address any of the issues brought by the student body.  The only reason they exist today is because a majority of students are ignorant of their existence.  I think there is a deliberate need of educating the students about the exploitation of their donations.  This is the reason I write today, for the purpose of opening minds.


Letter to the Editor: Medicare for All

By |

Dear Editor,

In the Thursday October 12th, 2009 issue of The Statesman, Kevin Young, one of the contributing writers, put together an article arguing for the concept of a Single-payer health care system. Although he has several legitimate points, Kevin is far from revealing the entire truth of the benefits and disadvantages of Single-payer health care. He is yet another individual writing with a biased, leftist agenda as opposed to simply exposing all of the facts for what they are.

So first off, what is ‘Single-payer health care’? How does it work?

Simply put, Single-payer health care is a public service financing the delivery of near-universal or universal health care to a given population as defined by age, citizenship, residency, or any other demographic. Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees and then pays for all services through a single government (or government-related) source,’ according to Wikipedia.org.(NOT’ A’ RELIABLE’ SOURCE)

Okay. That makes sense. We all pay taxes and receive medical care based off a collective pool, instead of managing our own health care policies. Our statistician columnist, Mr. Young, seems to believe that this is the best way to receive health care, because it is ‘Morally right, politically popular and economically advantageous’ and has the statistics to prove it.

Young displays some compelling information that can’t be ignored.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ For instance, according to Young; ’45,000 people die each year in this country because they have no health insurance’ and ‘at least 62 percent of all bankruptcies in this country result from medical bills.’ Yes, these are facts and faults of our current system. However, Young is telling you these facts for a particular reason, which is to sway your opinion to agreeing with his point of view. Unfortunately, what Young fails to do is paint a complete picture of the total health care issue. He conveniently ‘forgets’ to mention the state of Massachusetts and their attempts at a single-payer health care system.

According to the Boston Globe, the states plan is ‘a failure.’ It is still leaving ’200,000 people without coverage and can only go up with rising unemployment’hellip; ‘ They also have other tidbits of information, such as ‘for an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments’ and ‘low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, now face insurance policies requiring unaffordable co-payments for office visits and medications’ and’hellip; ‘access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals.’ Young also does not mention that according to a July 2009 Congressional Budget Office Report ‘enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.’ That does not sound like savings to me.

These are some of the facts of a currently running single-payer health care plan and a tasty single fact from our buddies down at the CBO. Far from a perfect utopian policy, the’ truth of the matter is that it will only become more complex, more expensive and more nebulous if expanded to fit an entire country. My job is not to sway you away from single-payer health care or towards a private sector plan. My job is to inform you of the facts, so you may make your own sound judgment. Consider other avenues such as Tort reform, which reduces medical malpractice suits or allows insurance companies to compete across state lines to help drive down costs before settling on a massive single-payer health care package. Don’t only listen to people like our narrow-minded friend Kevin Young and his slanted perspective on social issues and don’t just listen to me; research more and discover for yourself whether this plan is really ‘Morally Right’ or ‘Economically Advantageous.’

Sincerely,
Brent Neenan

Letter to the Editor: Blasphemy Day

By |

Dear Editor,

In the Monday, October 12 edition of The Statesman, the article ‘Controversial Flyers Posted Around Campus’ addressed the issue of hateful flyers found in campus buildings on Blasphemy Day, a movement intended to ‘open up all religious beliefs to the same level of free inquiry, discussion and criticism to which all other areas of academic interest are subjected,’ according to the official website www.blasphemyday.com. What this movement really does is needlessly mock world religions, and the fact that these flyers were present on a diverse college campus such as ours is despicable and inexcusable.

To begin, I would like to bluntly state that Blasphemy Day is stupid. The message contradicts itself ‘- on the website, a post entitled ‘The Importance of Blasphemy’ notes, ‘It is your responsibility as a logical person to shed light on the darkness of ignorance wherever it may be.’ It goes on to say ‘The only real blasphemy is ignorance.’ If someone can explain to me what is not ignorant about a day devoted to purposelessly offending people based on what they believe, I’d love to hear the explanation.

Does religion ‘deserve it’? Maybe in some ways. Some beliefs may seem a bit far-fetched, if not just silly, and dogma can sometimes be dangerous. Historically, it has led to prejudice, oppression, and war. Yet, religion serves an important psychological and sociological function. If it didn’t, it would not still be a factor of civilization that persists throughout millennia. Consider the benefits of religion: those who follow one tend to have higher levels of self-esteem, a greater sense of immediate and global community, increased mental health, an outlet for creativity and service, and the strength to conquer adversity. What is the reason for trying to put down people who feel these benefits simply because you disagree with the religious principles?

It is true that religious texts have the potential to be interpreted in several different ways, some of which are just downright scary. However, I feel that the concept of free thinking is also subject to interpretation, and the subsequent actions can be equally as horrifying. I believe that is what has happened with the creation of Blasphemy Day and with flyers such as the ones described in the article.

Religion certainly is not ‘immune to criticism’. It never has been, nor should it be. But it is important to note that there is a difference between criticism and insult. Furthermore, there is a difference between thinking freely and simply acting with animosity just because you disagree with religious principles. The notion of thinking freely should involve some actual thinking ‘- perhaps some research, some open-mindedness, and some questioning. Religious criticism should ideally be done in intelligent discourse between people of differing views, not by cowardly plastering hateful flyers around a generally peaceful, diverse college campus.

Religion is not going away any time soon, and the basic principles of each religion are not going to change. So, instead of expending energy being malicious, why not try reading a book once in a while or listening to someone with beliefs that vary from your own, and developing some notion of respect? Refusing to respect our fellow human being does not make society free. It binds us to ignorance and unnecessary conflict and inhibits social change. Think about that.

Sincerely,
Lindsay Woodruff

Letter to the Editor: Law School Thus Far

By |

Dear Editor,

Several friends (and family) have been asking me what the law school life is like. I decided to write this letter when I received my latest response from a friend asking me how the workload is.

Here is my response: Overall, it isn’t bad.

Now, sometimes I frame my response as ‘it isn’t a lot of work’ and people are surprised and rightfully, concerned. ‘How is law school not that much work?’ Well, I need to explain that response and why I find law school to be tolerable (thus far). So then, why the horror stories?

Well, first, let me tell you that law school IS stressful. Overall, I don’t want to give you the impression that law school is a big party, or even a marginal one. And my schedule clearly points out it is nothing of the sort.

True, there are many parties that you can go to, and you can certainly neglect your schoolwork, but you will face the consequences. No, a teacher will not yell at you . Instead, you may not be able to take the exam if the professor thinks you didn’t do the reading, and in law school, professors randomly call on students. Personally, I really like participating in class. The main impetus for this is the educational experience involved.
I want to be challenged.

12-hour days seem like a lot, but with that being said, your outlook on law school is really determined by you, and what you personally make of it.

If you are going to law school to either: A) make money or B) as an alternative for not getting into medical school then law school is not the place for you (BTW, these were the top two reasons on why people attend law school.) If it’s the latter (which is #1 on the poll), please re-take the MCAT’s and go to Medical School. Law and medicine are two completely separate things.

If you want money, then think carefully whether law school is right for you. Sometimes I say law school is ‘not as much work as I expected’ but what I really mean is that I find the work to be an enjoyable, pleasant, educational and overall, a very stimulating experience. I don’t find it to be ‘work’ as the type people usually characterize it as — a grudgingly boring, mundane experience, the ‘why am I even here’ sort of thing.

‘Why am I at law school’ — since the start of classes, I have never once said that and I do not intend to ever say that (well, at least not really mean it.) Some people who go to law school do, in fact, say that.

I honestly look forward to going to the library, reading cases and analyzing them. Please also be aware that my answer is very subjective and responses will vary, depending on someone’s interest in law school, their professors, their classmates, their law school, their study habits and why they are there in the first place.

So, the first step is appreciating the subject area of law. If you don’t like studying the law, if you don’t like reading cases, writing briefs, analyzing fact patterns and dissecting legal analysis of the subject matter, then you will be miserable here. So far, I am enjoying it.

If you do enjoy learning about the law, then it could very well be the place for you. However, I do hope your study skills are being perfected during undergrad. I also strategize when I do my work, instead of leaving it all for the last minute. This is only a preliminary evaluation of my schedule and of law school in general. Continue to wish me luck.

Sincerely,
Andrew Bruskin

Andrew Bruskin is an alumnus of Stony Brook University. He graduated in December 2008 with Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa distinction. He now attends the College of William and Mary School of Law.