This past Friday the USG Supreme Court ruled on the SBU-TV Case, in favor of the USG.  The ruling wasn’t a surprise to anyone who read the briefs; the SBU-TV’s argument was reasoned on logic that would make a first grader eligible to be a college professor.

Their brief was entirely an appeal of emotion, asking the Court to decide on issues of “fairness” without citing any legitimate violation of due process.  Their only glimmer of hope, a USG/Polity/SBU-TV alumnus who established some historical perspective on the matter.  But even he was not enough to help save this case that was doomed since the brief was first filed.

The students of SBU-TV’s former executive board reacted to the decision by filing an appeal to the USG Supreme Court.  I guess they haven’t sustained enough public humiliation and have come back for more.

Their appeal, which clearly lacked any attempt to proofread it for spelling and grammatical errors, made references to several pieces of legislation that have been long since repealed.  They also challenged Moiz Khan’s ability to speak at the hearing for the USG on the basis it was unfair since he was not on the USG Executive Board.  I guess they did not read the cover page of the USG Response Brief that listed him as their legal counsel.

I feel as though these students are not seeing the larger picture here.  First, they keep harping on the point that the closure of SBU-TV was a violation of their first amendment right.  They have made these accusations on several occasions but have failed to ever corroborate it with any evidence of press censorship.

But how could they?  SBU-TV had no viewpoint.  They were a 24/7 slideshow of outdated content from several years ago.  A $35,000 slideshow, operated on channel 20, which was only available to resident students.

These claims of first amendment violations are just a shallow attempt to harbor their true motivations.  During the hearing, the executive board gave several examples of job and internship opportunities they have received as a result of SBU-TV.

Perhaps they should take a moment to reflect and realize how selfish their actions are at this point.  Under the shield of “providing community benefit,” they have been challenging the closure of SBU-TV.  But the main reason they have been challenging it is to protect their continued resume’ experience.

My last point should not be misconstrued as meaning that students should not receive experience in student organizations that will help them progress into their post-college life.  But like everything in life, it is a give and take.  And in SBU-TV’s case, I don’t see any attempt to give.  It is clear from the inherent lack of content that this organization has released in recent years that it was entirely for the members’ personal gain.

If SBU-TV’s former executive board is so worried about their career prospects, they should stop this senseless muckraking and find a new journalistic output.  If they wish to continue with video distribution, there’s always Youtube or Vimeo.

Or if they want to try something new, they can take their pen to paper and write for BlackWorld the Asian American Journal or the Independent. I hear they have no standards

With these venues, there’s no way they can claim editorial suppression.