Interested by the drama that is the ASUO election season, I was compelled to attend the candidates debate. After the circus Tuesday night, I was left with only one thought: Where were the curtains? The theatrical performance was both laughable and offensive, yet surely the place to be if in need of some stand-up comedy.
In all seriousness however, two campaigns, that of Students United and Ben & Katie, showed up to actually discuss issues, what may be the reality of ASUO 2011-2012 and the implications that this would pose for students.
The first question of the “debate” — aka the question and elaborate/often unnecessary soliloquy time — pertained to the funding of OSPIRG using the incidental fee. There was almost a rumble in the room as the audience rustled in their seats, and the candidates swallowed deep breaths and rehearsed their stock-monologue in their minds.
From what I understand, the question at hand was whether or not we as students should allow our money to fund an organization of advocates, specifically OSPIRG.
First and foremost, I find this to be problematic and an deplorable idea, because funding advocates is not the responsibility of student dollars. Why should my fees fund advocates when I want to go to Hawaiian Night for free or because I want to know that the DDS (Designated Driver Shuttle) van will answer when I call.
It does not matter what OSPIRG advocates for; what matters is that it advocates for legislative policy that does not serve the best interest of all students. Instead, it serves the interests of a very insular microcosm of students.
I want my money to go to my school. I want ASUO to fund University Day, the longest standing tradition held on the University of Oregon campus, and I want more events on campus at night. I want all campus libraries open 24/7, and I want those libraries to have my course books on reserve so that I don’t have to drop another $300 on books for the term.
[email protected]