The Trinity of the Future
The following letter was sent to all senators last night:
Fellow Senators,
I write to you this evening out of deep concern for the future of student life at our college. This Sunday we will make a decision that will affect SGA finances for the next 3 to 5 years. We will vote on cable, spending 600,000 to 1,000,000 in one day. As I currently serve on both of the main committees that control the Student Activities Fund, and I care deeply about this college and our organization, I feel that I should share my observations and concerns with you on this critical issue.
To understand the magnitude of this decision, please understand that the amount of money we will be approving to spend will be almost 1/3rd of the entire Student Activities Fund per year. Moreover, as we currently stand, we are completely out of money. The Budget Committee, on which I serve, has spent its 50,000 dollars for the semester (That’s right, we spend only 100,000 dollars a year from the budget committee on student activities out of a “Student Activities Account” that has almost 700,000 dollars annually). Remember, a sizeable amount of money does go to TCAC, but their budget is also less than this cable contract. From this point forward—and we are only halfway through the semester—requests to fund activities are being turned down.
The Senate is also out of money. We could not spend 100 dollars if we wanted to for the rest of this year. We need to spend some time seriously considering this decision before we get to the meeting. Do you really think that cable is what this money is supposed to be used for? Do you really think that your constituents who are telling you they want cable fully understand these issues? I don’t. I think if we told people how much money we will need to spend on this, explain where it comes from, how much it is in proportion to all the other money, and what it stops us from accomplishing on our campus then people would see this in a different light. Bryce’s survey proves that people are confused. If you asked me if I would like cable in my room I would say yes. If you asked me if I would spend almost 200,000 dollars earmarked for student activities on cable I would say absolutely not. We never asked that question.
For those of you who are involved in, and care so passionately about, improving the climate of our community, you know that these 200,000 dollars could make a bigger impact than almost any of the initiatives in the Campus Climate Report. Those of us who don’t understand this don’t truly understand the problems we face. It is my opinion that when we decide to spend this money on cable instead of real student activities, we are each personally responsible for not doing our part to change the nonsensical atmosphere and the problems that plague our campus today. I respect you all a great deal—and I am proud to serve with you. But my conscience will not allow me to stand for this.
People want to blame the frats, they want to blame admissions, they want to blame the administration and the “inherent problems of the system”—and they may have some good arguments for that. However, it is about time we take a closer look at ourselves—the people we actually have some control over. In a time when increased social options and more funding for activities is desperately needed to address significant problems on campus—problems that directly influence the perception of our college and in turn ourselves—, are we sure we want to spend Student Activity money on cable? Just because the Senate made a mistake 6 years ago, does that mean we should continue to do the wrong thing now? If you had children, and you had only enough money to pay for cable or activities such as karate classes and swimming lessons, which option would you choose? Would you choose to let some of your children be left out on the social activities so that everyone else could watch cable television? This example is not that far of a stretch. We need to get our priorities straight.
Now, I must address the only two reasonable arguments that may inspire you to vote for this expenditure. The first argument is that we raised the SAF with the promise of cable. The fact of the matter is that this is simply not true. We clearly separated the two issues. The truth is that we are still charging our students less than some of the other NESCAC schools that don’t even pay for cable. The bottom line is this: you should not consider this fact when you vote. It is just an excuse to turn a blind eye toward the larger problems we face. If we don’t pass cable and enough people feel that we shouldn’t have raised the SAF, we can just lower it again.
The second argument is that this is really what the student body wants. Well, I already expressed to you that if they realized what the repercussions of this decision would be that they would think differently. If you think this may be the case, I ask you to seriously consider your next steps. To me, this is more about what is the right thing to do than about what people will think of me. If I can make the problems we are facing here at Trinity College even fractionally better by not financially hanging ourselves, it will be worth it—even if people are upset at first. Then again, maybe we should just wait to react until the next round of insensitive, racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks end up published in the Times.
Great change often involves great risk. When we make the right decision to not fund cable on Sunday, we will almost certainly take some flak. But I promise you that I will not rest until the campus knows why we made the decision that we did and how that decision will ultimately make Trinity a much better place. This will not be as bad as some of us think it will be. On the contrary, this will ultimately be looked at as a significant step in the progression of something that is much bigger than all of us. This is a once in a college lifetime opportunity to change the course of history, and to improve the lives of students who have yet to step foot on our great campus. Lets not pass this up.
Lets make history together!
Sincerely,
Nathan Kirschbaum
23 Comments
Leave a comment
News by Categories
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- natalia on UPDATED SGA Full Roster
- Natalia on Results of SGA Elections
- special education on "14 Days" Library Response is Inadequate
- special education on “14 Days” Library Response is Inadequate
- Tweets that mention WANTED: SGA Admin. Staff (Stipends Provided) « Trinity College Student Government Association -- Topsy.com on WANTED: SGA Admin. Staff (Stipends Provided)
Loading ...
Let me start by saying im not exactly sure where i come down on this issue. I agree that the student body isn’t well informed as to all of the intricacies of the decision. But at the same time, cable could easily be characterized as the most commonly used “student activity” (if you want to call it that) on campus. What i can comment on with some authority is what the survey showed regarding the cable question.
As has been most commonly noted, an overwhelming 82% felt the SGA should continue to provide for cable. However, this number is exceptionally misleading. If you ask someone do they want something good, they will always say yes. What would be far more telling is if we provided them with all the facts and the number came out the same. Furthermore, only 45% categorized cable as a “student activity,” which would seem to be a fairly good prerequisite for paying for something out of the SAF. With this in mind, only 53% of respondents felt that cable should be paid for out of the SAF. So, as we can see, this is really more of a toss up than overwhelming support for either side. Finally, 23% of respondents said that they seldom or never use the cable service, yet we would be paying for them to have it just the same.
I don’t mention this information with any particular agenda. It’s just to give you the facts. I am glad that we are really having this discussion, and i look forward to input for the SGA and the greater student body.
Would you mind explaining this logic?
My thought was simply that the student activities fee was designed to pay for just that: student activities. The survey seems to indicate that only 45% of the student body characterized cable service as such. Its an interesting technicality to reflect on. I’m not sure it means we can’t pay for cable out of the SAF, but it at least raises the question of whether or not we should.
Thank you. I would not normally consider a student activity to be a hazy categorization to make. The fact that there is no general consensus tells us that something is wrong. Calling watching cable in your room a student activity is like me calling a friend a girlfriend because it just so happens that she is a girl and a friend. One activity that students choose to do is to watch television. That does not make it an officially recognized college sponsored student activity.
I have a problem with most of the arguments made in Nathan’s post, but I think the most trouble part is when he contends that there are only two logical arguments for cable. Since I have already made a lengthy post that covered most of these issues, I’ll just keep this short and respond to his shortchanging of the argument in favor of cable. Nathan says we nee to get our priorities straight, and acts as though there are no redeeming qualities to television. People often lament on how much of a bubble they live in when they are at Trinity, and how they lose track of what is going on in the real world. Given that, it doesn’t make much sense to cut off one of the most effective outlets to the rest of the world. I know that I would not be as informed on the current election were I not glued to CNN on the nights of the primaries. Obviously, some of the things on TV are trash, but so are many of the things on the internet. Should we make all the students buy their own internet? It is unfair for us to have this discussion and act as though the only thing on TV is I Love New York, just as it is unfair to assume the only thing on the internet is Perez Hilton. There are many other problems with Nathan’s logic of course, like why we would hold a survey and a forum if we would just consider the students misinformed, or how he refuses to acknowledge the context of the decision to raise the SAF. But I only have so much time so let’s leave this at that.
David,
You said:
You are putting words in my mouth. I said there are only two reasonable arguments. And that is my opinion.
This is not about whether cable is good, bad, helpful, or hurtful. It is about if a fund that has been set up for a certain purpose should be used for something other than that purpose. You are acting like people will not be able to watch cable. Cable would still be provided in common areas, and people could still have it in their rooms if that was important to them.
I think it is pretty ridiculous for you to say that there are problems with my arguments but you don’t have time to talk about it. Isn’t it a little unfair to tell someone they are wrong but not tell them why? I think having these kinds of discussions is what being a senator is all about.
As for your comment:
You are plain wrong. Also, I believe a better word would be uninformed. Look at the survey results that Bryce explained above. In addition to his remarks, in that same survey, only 47% of students had even heard of the Campus Climate Committee Report. The survey also states that 48% of students wanted the SGA to take a leading roll in implementing the Campus Climate Report’s suggestions. That means that more than 100% of people who knew what the report was wanted us to do something about it. And, to drive my point home, as Bryce mentioned, only 53% of respondents wanted cable to be paid for out of the SAF. Which means that 47% did not want cable to be paid out of the SAF. It is not so unreasonable to think that the 47% who didn’t want cable paid in that fashion are mostly the same 48% of people who knew about the Climate Committee Report. If this is the case that would mean that the people who are informed are more likely to not be in favor of using money out of the SAF for cable. Its not a definitive argument—but it is reasonable.
Of course, I am always in favor of letting people speak for themselves which is why I think it is worth while to have conversations like these.
As for me not acknowledging the context of the decision to raise the SAF, you should elaborate on that. I recall the meeting at which the SGA made that decision very clearly. What do you remember hearing at that meeting that I am taking out of context?
While I haven’t come to a solid decision, yet, I’m leaning about 95% towards voting NO for cable.
1. Cable can be considered a student activity when it brings students together. Having cable in common rooms (and maybe using some of our money towards refurbishing those common rooms..just a thought) would, in my opinion, fit that definition.
2. Cable costs a ridiculous about of money, and I think that Nathan’s arguments are SPOT ON. We have a campus climate problem at Trinity. We have racism. We have homophobia. We have bigotry, and above all else, we have ignorance and intolerance. Wouldn’t it make perfect sense to allocate precious monies that we have towards funding activities to get people out of their rooms and interacting with one another? Anyone in the SGA knows that I’m a strong proponent to funding any sort of student group/activity that is organized, and I don’t believe that it is appropriate for us to deny monies from legitimate, undeniably STUDENT activities, and pay for cable instead.
3. David, you are very mistaken. The SAF was not increased because of cable, and you wold know this had you been on the SGA last semester for those series of discussions, or had you been at the cable forum that we had to explain the financial situation surrounding the SAF increase. Although it’s been said thousands of times, the SAF was increased so that we wouldn’t have to deny funding to student groups, because the SAF hadn’t been raised in years, and to allow us to CONSIDER continuing to pay for cable. Andrew Pedro said explicitly that passing the SAF resolution did not mean that we were agreeing to pay for cable, and that we were not having that discussion at that meeting.
4. After reading Nathan’s e-mail, this morning, I spoke to a number of my friends and asked what they thought the average Trinity student’s response would be if we didn’t pay for cable, and they told me that they didn’t think people would have much of a problem paying for their own cable if they had to, and that the average Trinity student is affluent enough to afford to pay for their own cable.
My mouth is watering thinking about what wonderful things we could do with that $1 million dollars if it was freed up to actual student activities.
On a side note, there are only five freshmen on the SGA and in many ways, I think you should think about us. You juniors and seniors only have to put up with Trinity for another year or two, but us freshmen are going to be here for a while. Please help us out on this one, by letting us leave Trinity better than we found it. We can only do this by change, and when Nathan says that he will not rest until everyone knows why we made this decision, I believe him.
I’m very against paying for this. Just voicing my opinion. Good luck.
I think this issue is painfully simple. Could we improve this school with the money normally allocated for cable? The answer is a resounding “yes”. Students who want cable will still be able to get it and those who don’t will enjoy benefits that previously would have been unavailable.
I understand that Andrew says the issues were divided, but context matters. There would have been no discussion about raising the SAF if cable had not come up. I don’t think you can separate the issues, and just saying that they are separate and that there was no discussion about cable when the SAF was raised does not actually make the issues separate. They are linked, whether you like it or not. Nathan, I am sorry that I substituted the word logical for reasonable, I really don’t see the difference but if there is one I am willing to concede the point. The argument I did not think you were giving credit as reasonable was that which says that funding cable may actually be the best thing we can do with this money. As for the arguments I did not address, I decided not to address them because I had pretty much covered them in my post a few weeks ago and I did not feel the need to rewrite it all. I think Andrea’s argument that enough students on campus can afford to pay for their own cable that it won’t make a difference is a terrible way to make decisions. Let’s not just play to the stereotypical Trinity Student and assume the others will deal with it. We’re better than that. We represent a wide range of students, we ought to act like it, and I think Andrea would agree upon reflection. I am sorry that I am unable to elaborate more. I actually do not have a computer since mine broke, so this is not mine but rather a friends’, which may help explain why these posts might read as though they are a little rushed. They are, and I apologize if has been a problem or becomes one.
David, the one thing i would like to hear you elaborate on is the major difference between having cable in the common rooms, which will be back next year, and in the individual dorm rooms (which would still have the option to buy it if they can afford to). I guess my argument is that the person you are standing up for is someone who cant afford the relatively minimal cost of paying for it in their room (even smaller when it is divided among roommates) and is inconvenienced substantially by walking to their common room. Is the defense of this person really worth $200,000? If this is the case, id like you to elaborate on that, because i really don’t get it.
Because I am in DC until Wednesday, I just wanted to let the SGA know that I would support its decision not to use my money to pay for cable, since I don’t own a tv and would appreciate the extra stimulus for my peers to participate in the activities student organizations provide.
The problem with the common room argument is that not every dorm has one, or one with a TV. I’ve spoken with Nathan about this, and I don’t think we’re actually as far apart as it seems here. The issue with the current cable situation is really the ridiculous contract Comcast has given us. We need to try to get a one year deal, and then in that next year find a way for cable to be paid for out of the housing budget, the way internet is. I don’t know if we can get a one year deal, and I honestly don’t know how I’ll vote if this Comcast deal winds up as the best option. Either way, I only just looked over the contract, and it complicates things far beyond the question of simply being for or against cable.
As far as all dorms not having common rooms, Dean Alford trying to change that when Jarvis opens back up. I’ve actually spoken to him about that specifically since my dorm is one that has converted it’s common room into a triple. But even if every other dorm has a common room, that’s even more neighborly interaction. What’s wrong with me walking to Jones to watch food network and socialize, at least while my dorm doesn’t have a common room?
I do have one question for whomever can answer it. Common rooms will still have cable, but what about “common rooms” that have been converted to bedrooms? Will those students just happen to get free cable? If so, it doesn’t sound fair to me.
That’s not how it would work. If we provide cable to the common rooms, we would select exactly which rooms get selected so we could make sure only the actual common rooms get it free.
On March 8th at 9:46pm a person named Fred attempted to post a comment. Because that person did not provide a valid Trinity email address the post has not been published. This person should repost their comments with a valid Trinity email address and the comments will immediately be published. Users of this site are welcome to remain anonymous but they must provide their Trinity email, which will be kept private. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact bryce.blum@trincoll.edu. rel=”nofollow”>.
The only issue I’m seeing in the arguments above is the argument that cable will be provided to common rooms. I live in one of the admittedly few but definitely existent dorms WITHOUT a common room. What are you going to say to students like me? Oh well-walk across campus to watch TV? I do consider television one of my outlets to the outside world, and I don’t think it’s selfish to say I that I consider it one of the best “activities” I participate when there’s nothing else going on. It does NOT keep me from participating in other student activities, and I’m positive that if there are people who do not participate in Trinity’s activities, it is NOT the TV that’s keeping them from doing so. I recognize that I will not be in this dorm by the time the decision is made, but SOMEONE will, and I urge you to think about that.
Katie–I too live in a dorm without a common room. But when we spend the majority of the Student Activity Fee on cable, and then deny money to students who want to organize activities, and comcasts interest rate is potentially as high as 11% every year, it just doesn’t make sense. Students who would still like to have cable in their rooms can sign up for their own cable contracts. Is it fair to students without TVs that a good part of their three-hundred-something dollar student activity fee be used to pay for other students’ cable?
Everyone is making some really good points. I want to make sure that people understand that I am not against cable. I actually think that every student should get cable, for free!
Andrew Pedro mentioned in his most recent global email that many of the other NESCAC schools provide cable free of charge. This is true, but it is also my understanding that this expense is not paid for out of a Student Activities Fund. It is paid for just like Locknetics or high speed internet. And this is something that we need to work toward achieving. As a senator, this is something I will be pushing to make happen.
But to pay for cable out of the Student Activities Fund when we have so many other critical needs that must be addressed is, in my opinion–and in the opinion of many of my constituents–, the wrong decision.
I just want to say that I have nothing against tv but that most of what is on tv is now quite literally on the internet. ABC literally broadcasts everything over the internet and many other networks are following close behind. (I personally watch Lost on the weekends from my laptop since Im usually hammering out papers while its on tv) So im not saying that we shouldnt watch tv but that it seems odd to short change other student activites which could be funded by the SAF so students can have double access to information through both cable and internet.
As a graduating senior, this won’t affect me but I think that having cable in common rooms is imperative; would the large common rooms in jones and High rise still have cable? I agree that the extra money could be allocated nmore efficiently, as I have witnessed first hand how inefficient use of SAF money is disastrous. I don’t think the cable contract we have been offered is economically reasonable; AT ALL. It would be a horrible waste to see our cable bill increase exponentially each year.
So its tuesday now… Am I missing somewhere where the decision was posted or has it not been? After all the hype I figured what you all decided would have been made quite clear.
We passed a resolution allowing the administrators to sign a one year extension of the current cable contract to give us enough time to try to get the college to put cable on the room and board bill. Basically, we all agree that cable is nice, but also all agree that the SAF is not the place to pay for it so we’re working on getting it payed for from some other fund.