Being an individual who has voluntarily worked for PSU students over the past three and a half years within USG, I wish to state the following on recent events involving the organization.

There have been questions raised about the "inability" of USG's executive leaders to work with the University's administration for the interests of students. I assert it is the University administration that lacks "maturity" and "professionalism," if it cannot work with USG because of past differences over controversial issues.

Apparently the University administration holds a grudge for being confronted with its failings -- and wants to recognize only those it finds it convenient to deal with. If USG's leaders disagree with University policies and express it in the media, then they lack "maturity" or are "unprofessional". But for some reason this does not play both ways. The University has its own PR mechanisms to advance its interests, so why shouldn't those individuals who oppose its policies have an equal voice?

Recently, the administration rejected students selected to represent undergraduate interests on the President's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee and appointed the student "representative" they felt was most qualified. This is not "representation," but "despotism" and "tokenism."

There are serious implications from the qualifications used to evaluate the candidates -- especially the "the ability to keep confidences". No student representative, if she/he is truly representing students, should keep information on issues that affect other students in confidence with the University administration; more than enough secrecy already exists in the University's decision-making process.

We cannot participate within the University community as informed students when others are granted special privileges to withhold information necessary to make informed decisions, under the guise of being our "representatives".

In light of Mr. Asbury directing USG's executives to return University "property" under the threat of sanctions, he should have removed himself from deciding other USG members were not "qualified," in order to avoid a possible conflict of interest. Kendall Houk was one of the individuals who met with University officers to negotiate opening the budget and was closely associated with USG's executives in that role.

Instead of having someone represent us who has devoted a lot of time toward learning about the budget of his own initiative, we have a "representative" who did not even apply for this position in the first place! This is not to take away from Mr. Evans' qualifications, but a reflection on how serious the University takes students who seek to become actively involved in "legitimate" activities.

This makes a mockery of the ability of students to select their own representatives and is indicative of the University's attitude toward those who have the courage to question the morality of its policies.

It is not surprising that the University will work with one student organization and help them realize their interests at the expense of others -- after all, who hasn't heard of "divide and conquer?"