Dear Editor:
In response to Dennis Sweeney’s editorial (Sept. 22, “The Bunny noticed-did you?”) I wanted to point out an error in his argument that the University is looking out for the students by putting in this “new” walkway in front of the Bunny.
The walkway was there before. As a freshman, I can’t expect Dennis to remember this, but this exact same stretch of sidewalk was present during my freshman year. For some inexplicable reason, the University decided to remove it and replace it with grass. But that didn’t change the fact that it was the most direct route from Mallinckrodt to the library, and the grass in that area was repeatedly trampled to death by the day to day flow of students, and subsequently replaced by brand new sod whenever the University saw fit.
The University wasn’t taking notice of the needs of students, but rather the simple economic fact that it is significantly cheaper to install cement once than to replace sod every semester or so. A better example of the University looking out for its students would be the parking garage and student center currently under construction to address limited space for parking and recreation. Although the enormous hole in the middle of campus is, admittedly, an eyesore, the end result will be a large improvement for the Wash. U. students of the future.
-Kevin Mulqueeny
Class of 2007
Time to question ResTech charges
Dear Editor:
As students of Washington University, we have been taught to question the world around us. For the past three weeks, many questions have arisen concerning the Internet, or lack thereof, on campus. While many have accepted the inconvenience of not being able to use AOL Instant Messenger, there is a far larger problem that is being overlooked. Students who use exorbitant amounts of bandwidth are not only keeping us from talking to our friends online, but they are keeping students from being able to download documents from ERes, check their e-mail, and perform other tasks that are necessary for academic reasons. While these students inconvenience all, a far larger issue stands.
Most students realize that we pay a large price to attend Wash. U. On average, tuition for the 2006-2007 school year will cost students approximately $44,240 according to the website http://facts.wustl.edu. Although the Internet fee may seem like a drop in the bucket, each student is paying an additional $270 per year in order to use the Internet, about $33.75 per month. For nearly the past month, however, a great deal of the basic services that should be provided to us through our internet fee have been unavailable. Which leads to a question that every student should pose to ResTech. What are we actually paying for?
University of Chicago and Cornell University students pay $33,336 and $34,761 respectively. These two peer institutions include Internet in their tuition. Rutgers University and University of Maryland, where students pay $27,505 and $25,806 respectively, also include internet in their tuition. Why is it that at Wash. U. our tuition is nearly $9,500 higher than Cornell, the next most expensive university and yet we have to pay an additional fee for Internet that is unreliable at best?
It is time that students begin holding ResTech more responsible. There is no reason for us to be paying an extra fee for internet that does not work. ResTech should tell us why despite their systems of prioritizing, students cannot access ERes or ArtSci e-mail because their browsers are timing out. We should all demand answers from ResTech as to why three weeks into this problem, there is not a solution and why we continue paying for Internet. We have come to expect the best for our money from our school; we should expect the same from ResTech.
-Adam R. Cohen
Class of 2009
What do we want? Instant messenger!
Dear Editor:
A year and a half ago, a group of very passionate students got together to support something very important to them. They sacrificed their academics, their social life and their overall well-being to let the administration know how important this issue was to them. They locked themselves in the quad for days and refused to eat, all over one simple issue: Living Wage.
While the Living Wage issue was important to some in the University community, there is a much greater issue that is plaguing the University. This issue is affecting the majority of students that live on campus, and it needs to end, now. Brookings officials continue to maintain that they are working on fixing the problem, but nothing has been done. I think it is time for the University to take a stand and follow the footsteps of the Student Worker Alliance. Until the University regains access to AOL Instant Messenger between the hours of 4 p.m.-1 a.m., I believe the entire campus should partake in a sit-in/hunger strike.
Just think, if the SWA was able to conjure so much support for an issue that was only important to a few, how much support could this cause gain? This could become a campus-wide movement, with thousands of students lined up in Brookings Quad, chanting, “What do we want? A-I-M. When do we want it? NOW!”
ResTech needs to take accountability for their actions, and simply saying “we’re working on it” is not enough. Someone needs to let them know how we feel, and desperate times call for desperate measures.
And if this sit-in/hunger strike doesn’t work? We can always call up the Hatch and ask them to play a benefit show outside ResTech.
-Jake Greenblatt
Class of 2008