USG campaign tactics prevent talk of issues

I preface this letter with a quote from a professor in the political science department.

When I asked him what he thought of the Undergraduate Student Government, he replied, "All USG is is a bunch of kids fighting in a sandbox."

Unfortunately these sentiments reflect those of most of the Penn State students, faculty and staff.

Long have the cynics been heard saying, "What does USG really do for the students? Nothing."

And what is USG doing to dispel these rumors?

Well, the USG Senate recently voted not only to increase the amount candidates can spend on campaigns to $800, but also to give them free access to paper the campus to their hearts' content.

To clarify: Until now, candidates were allowed three posters to every bulletin board, one for name recognition and two for issues and platforms.

The recent vote changed the rule to allow for unlimited postering on all bulletin boards.

What this means is that come March 17, the entire campus will be awash with posters.

At a conservative 4 cents per copy, if a campaign spends $500 on copies, that means almost 13,000 pieces of paper.

Say we have four campaigns, that means that Penn State must deal with 52,000 sheets of paper with nothing but catchy slogans on them.

Not only is this environmentally heinous, but does USG really think this is going to endear them to the students? I don't think so.

Maybe I am the only optimist left, but I still believe that a student government plays an important role in voicing student concerns. So why are our senators voting to do away with substantive campaigning?

This year the election will be won by the ticket with the most catchy slogan and the biggest group of pledges and gophers. Some may argue that this is the way it has always been.

I argue that rather than giving in and succumbing to this type of campaigning, candidates should make an effort to get out and talk to students and see what the real issues are.

I also urge the students to look beyond the posters and vote for the real issues in the campaigns.

Otherwise what do we end up with?

A bunch of kids fighting in a sandbox.

Joanna Phillips
sophomore-economics

STRAIGHT charter would bring diversity

Long have organizations been formed to preserve the members' cultural or religious traditions. There are organizations for racial, religious, sexual and even political minorities and majorities.

Denying a group the right to preserve their cultural views and beliefs just because they are a majority seems to be hypocritical.

I want to make clear that I am not doing this out of support for the views that STRAIGHT holds. But it is the principle that is being violated which causes me to write.

Now to address Scott Paterno's Jan. 27 column. It seems to me that Mr. Paterno has not done any sort of homework on STRAIGHT.

In the membership form that I picked up late last semester, it clearly states, " . . . STRAIGHT is not being formed to induce confrontations with the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Student Alliance . . . under no circumstances will 'gay bashing' be tolerated . . . Take your hate elsewhere."

So I don't see how Mr. Paterno could think that granting this organization a charter could even suggest that "every other hate group should get one as well."

Condemning a group of individuals on the basis of their predecessors is not only unethical but unconstitutional as well.

Condemning the German government for the atrocities committed half a century ago by their Nazi predecessors is wrong, wouldn't you agree?

So why does Mr. Paterno condemn STRAIGHT for what groups of stupid people did long before anyone in STRAIGHT was probably even born?

No one knows what STRAIGHT will do. Give them their charter. They want one, and until they prove otherwise, they deserve one.

Lastly, America is in no way a melting pot. Being a non-conformist is the "cool" thing. If America was indeed the great melting pot that everyone claims, then to continue the very tacky metaphor, no one would want to cook in separate little pots and form their own groups.

I think America shouldn't be a melting pot.

Individualism is greatly prided in the United States of America, and if we were to melt together and loose those individualistic quirks, we wouldn't be the great separatist nation that we are.

Aziz Shamim
junior-biochemistry and molecular biology

Borough housing plans need student input

There a lot of things you have to face when you go to college. You have to deal with the issue of paying for school, textbooks, classes. Classes can be tough and stressful.

The last thing students need to worry about is the State College Borough making laws and regulations that hurt us and make it more difficult to find housing, which is a premium already.

There seem to be rules about everything. Most of these rules try to eliminate the student population from living in more residential developments and limit the number of unrelated students living in a one-family home.

In the Collegian on Jan. 30, members of the State College Borough Council said the reason for such laws is complaints from the residents of State College.

Borough officials basically said that students cause the majority of the noise and problems in the borough.

For a borough and a town that would not even be here if it weren't for us students and the University, they seem pretty ungrateful for our presence.

If we were not here, all the stores, shops, bars and restaurants downtown would simply shut down.

This University also directly or indirectly accounts for the majority of the jobs in this area, and students are the reason it's here.

The borough better start respecting the rights of students to live and get an education here.

In order for them to get our points, we as students have to start taking action. Call or write to the borough, attend borough council meetings.

If they see that we don't like the laws and regulations, and get enough pressure from students, they have to change.

Someone's got to give sooner or later.

Tom Bux
junior-American studies