Editorial
Arizona Daily Wildcat
November 14, 1997

Referendum reconsidered

On Oct. 9, the Arizona Daily Wildcat came out in favor of the proposed $40 per semester student fee to support the Memorial Student Union renovation project.

We were wrong.

Initially, the Wildcat supported the fee because of two key words: "student control." The $40 fee means student control of the project; a student advisory board will oversee the project.

Now, for the very reasons that we once supported the fee, we must stand against it. Students are no longer in control of this project, if they ever really were. In the weeks since the Oct. 9 editorial, it has become increasingly apparent that "student control" is more axiomatic than practical. This is the administration's project, and always has been.

Contrary to popular propaganda, students won't get real representation if the referendum passes. The student advisory board mentioned in the referendum will be appointed, not elected. There is no true control without representation, and an appointed official is no more representative of a community than is a dictator.

If this is really about student control, why is the administration even involved in the referendum? The sunset clause amended to the referendum says that "the student fee board and the UA Administration shall review within one year from the passage of this referendum all fundraising efforts."

Why trust administrators in this? They have a track record of pursuing their own pet projects at the expense of students.

While administrators were singing the praises of the Integrated Instructional Facility, the Student Union was being ignored. While the University was wheeling and dealing to secure funds for IIF, the Student Union was being ignored. While administrators fast-tracked final approval of plans for IIF, the Student Union was being ignored.

Not only was the Student Union ignored, but so were student voices of opposition to IIF.

Administrators swore that the IIF and the Student Union were separate projects, that there was no competition for funding. Now, as we search for ways to fund this enormous project, it is evident that the Student Union never had a chance.

All of the money diverted to IIF could have been directed to the Student Union with no cost to students. But it wasn't.

Why? Because, all along, the administration expected students to pay for the new Student Union.

The carrot has been alleged student control of the building project. The stick is a phantom tuition hike that would pay for the building instead. Even the stick's a little weak, though, since the fee becomes mandatory and essentially becomes a tuition increase anyway.

A tuition increase is not the only non-fee way to pay for the Student Union but student-proposed alternatives have been shot down.

Students didn't want the IIF, but as President Likins reminded us, "that train has left the building."

Let's not let this train go.