Category Archives: Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor may be sent to the same email address or mailed to 1615 Stanley Street, New Britain, Conn. 06050. For those who would like their letters to be printed in the newspaper, letters must be signed, accompanied by valid contact information and must be 300 words or less. The Recorder reserves the right to edit length

Letters To The Editor Are Fundamental To Journalism

by Lorenzo Burgio and Kimberly Pena

Letters to the editor have always been submitted to newspapers as a way to incorporate the public’s perspective.

“The letters to the editor section is the prime forum of democracy in a newspaper, the place where the little guy gets to have his say,” explained

The option to submit a letter to the editor serves as a bulletin board for the public to share opinions or information they feel is necessary for other members of the public to know.

It’s a way for citizens to express their concerns publicly and in their own words and has historically played this role.
“Letters to the editor can be effective in influencing public opinion and legislators’ views. The ‘Letter to the Editor’ section is one of the most widely read parts of most newspapers, offering a chance to reach a broad audience. Letters to the editor can provide readers with insights on issues with which they may be unfamiliar, and can also inspire readers to take action,” explained the National Education Association.
In the late 1700s into the early 1800s, lawyer and legislator John Dickinson wrote a series of essays titled “Letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania,” that were periodically published in various newspapers throughout the 13 colonies.

The essays argued that the colonies were sovereign in their internal affairs, and Dickinson argued that taxes were being paid by the colonies in order to raise revenue for Parliament, versus through regulated trade, which he felt was unconstitutional.

The twelve letters submitted by Dickinson helped unite the colonists against the British Empire and highlighted the importance of letters to the editor.

Something that seems to be overlooked in regards to letters to the editor, is the fact that is was written by someone who is not a member of the newspaper’s staff or editorial board.

The work submitted then does not constitute as an article, but a letter to the editor, and its content is not that of the newspaper, but of the public or person who submitted the article.

The purpose of letters to the editor are to tell the newspaper what they are doing wrong, filling holes in stories they published and for citizens to simply explain perception of certain issues to the public.

“In a letter to the editor or opinion piece, you can bring up information not addressed in a news article, and can create the impression of widespread support or opposition to an issue,” explained the National Council of Teachers of English.

Therefore it will be considered unethical for any staff member of the newspaper to change the writing and the meaning of the letters to the editor. Its purpose is to provide a perspective from outside of the newspaper organization that is untouched by the paper.

For a staff member to change the meaning of the piece, is committing an injustice to the public. It is not expressing the authentic meaning of the letter and it does not provide the most detailed insight of members of the community.

“There’s some value in providing readers with a notion of what people in their community are saying and thinking… We do our best to maintain a kind of a coarse filter and err on the side of publishing something rather than not publishing it.”

However, this does not obligate the paper to publish every letter sent to the editor, it is based on the editor’s discretion on what they think is for the best interest to the paper and its readership.


Letter To The Editor

by Stephen Dew

Finance Committee Vice-Chair

Student Government Association

A few months ago, the Student Government Association at Central Connecticut Sate University decided to embrace the advocacy of social justice issues on this campus, on behalf of the students, through the creation of the Social Justice Committee.

Nobody denies that as a campus we must confront issues like racism, sexism and homophobia. As a homosexual man, I want to see a campus that is welcoming to all, but SJC has done far more harm than good.

It has alienated minority communities, such as the veterans on campus, who only a few weeks ago were not invited to attend a panel organized by the committee to discuss veterans issues. While the panel may have helped some, it has thrown open divisions between not only the Student Veterans Organization and the SGA, but also divisions inside the government itself.

To feel more a part of the campus, SVO requested shirts and sweatshirts to promote themselves, which the SGA approved by a majority. But because of this, members of the SJC have pushed other organizations to request shirts to feel more included. I ask, why did SVO feel alienated? Why did members of the committee vote no on the request made by SVO? And why do they now push for more organizations to request promotional items?

It’s extremely clear to me the student government has been hijacked — for personal and moral gain — by a bunch of loony lefties who wish to impose their will on others who do not want it.

The average student does not want to be lectured on making the campus more open and compassionate. They want and need help with the cost of living that every student faces, from tuition fees to the price of textbooks.

How can the student government or senators claim the moral high ground, when not enough is done on these matters, because we as senators have to bicker and argue against those who are intolerant of those who do not think in their way.

An open and compassionate campus cannot be created if those students who struggle with their day-to-day living have to be tossed aside simply because they cannot afford to come to CCSU; that would be the biggest injustice to impose on our students.

Letter To The Editor: Teacher furlough days are harmful to helping state budget

Teacher furlough days are harmful to helping state budget

by Drew Michael McWeeney

After speaking with Connecticut State Colleges and Universities President Mark E. Ojakian last month, it is positively sinful that he and Governor Malloy are continuing to support the idea that state teachers in the state should voluntarily use unpaid leave as a kind of “furlough day,” in order to close the budget gap for our state’s economic crisis.

This is fantastic when some people, like Ojakian, get a free car, car insurance, an over $300,000 salary and free vehicle repairs.

Ask a teacher who makes under $90,000 a year, has $500 a month in student loans, pays for their own car and insurance, to take unpaid “days off” – and see what they have to say.

Furlough days do not work for state teachers; classes need to be taught. Students need feedback and help with material that is being taught. Teaching positions are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. generally, but that is only part of a teacher’s workday.

When I become a teacher, would I even dare to furlough the almost countless hours I spend after my students have left school and I am planning for the weeks and months ahead? Would I take a furlough day when my papers are due to journals on tight deadlines? Would I furlough the hours when I sneak out of bed the next day at 5 a.m. to squeeze in another hour or two of work? What about when I have to give up my time on weekends to work on writing IEPs, 504s, behavior modification plans and lesson plans? (Which teachers currently do, and are not paid for.)

Teachers in this state donate hundreds of hours a year beyond what their contract requires, and now CSCU President Ojakian and Governor Malloy want more. They both need to stop calling this situation a “budget crisis.” It has been this way since I entered college four years ago. A crisis cannot be permanent by definition, and the budget cannot be fixed by having all state teachers work for free. They do enough of that already.

I love how some, such as Governor Malloy and President Ojakian, assume that shared sacrifice means simply getting just a little bit more out of those who cannot afford it. Teachers in this state already donate a large portion of their salary to pay for retirement health benefits they might never see. Literally, teachers have to fork over cash twice a month because the state made promises they knew they could never afford.

Not to mention, President Ojakian and Governor Malloy forgot to say how much of their earnings they will give back to the state. How many furlough days for you, Mark Ojakian and Dannel Malloy? Check your privileges, for your salaries are too high for the work you both do.

No wonder why people – especially teachers – want out of Connecticut.

Drew Michael McWeeney, 21, of Wolcott is majoring in early childhood education and music performance and is a teacher candidate at Southern Connecticut State University. His website is

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

I was a newly minted PhD when I arrived as an Assistant Professor at Central Connecticut. I was excited and lucky to have the opportunity to work at a job that I loved, and to engage with students who challenged and pushed me to embrace my role as an educator. Unlike my colleagues in graduate school who churned out scores of job applications, hoping to land a job in the “big leagues,” my approach to the job search was different. I only applied for jobs whose descriptions aligned closely with my scholarly interests and I was particularly interested in institutions that prioritized teaching. I sent out three job applications, was invited to two campus interviews and accepted a job at CCSU.

I have been truly happy with my job at CCSU. When I arrived on campus, I met students who were intellectually engaged and appreciated their education. In my first year, I had the opportunity to design and teach courses that drew directly from my research interests and my teaching likewise informed my scholarship. Although the teaching load is heavy, I was able to develop my research agenda.

In the few years that I have been on the faculty at CCSU, I have worked hard to be a productive scholar. I have presented my research at regional, national, and international conferences in my discipline. I published a paper in a leading journal in my field, I contributed a book chapter in an edited collection by leading scholars in my subfield, and I have several other papers in the pipeline. This past summer I extended my dissertation research, collecting new data that will allow me to complete a book project. I have developed collaborative working relationships with colleagues in institutions across the United States and have begun to form networks internationally.

Unlike those colleagues in graduate school who believed that you needed to be in the “big leagues” to gain national recognition for your work, I mention the above to show that I have been able to achieve some success, while a junior faculty member at CCSU. Most importantly, my success has been achieved solely because of the institutional support that I have received through the Connecticut State University system (CSU). The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Faculty Development Grant, the AAUP Curriculum Development Grant and the CSU AAUP Research Grant enabled me to engage in this creative work. Without this support, most of my work would not have been possible. It is obvious therefore why I have followed the ongoing contract negotiations with the Board of Regents (BOR) with grave concern. The fact that the BOR would consider cutting this support is an attack on faculty that has serious, negative consequences for students.

I have had numerous conversations with other junior faculty, many of whom agree that the BOR proposals represent a slap in our collective faces. Faculty mobility within the CSU system, redefining professionalism and collegiality, and implementing a code of conduct will scare a number of young faculty, men and women who are excellent teachers and engaged scholars, to look elsewhere for work. The BOR has sent a disturbing, hurtful, and depressing message to junior faculty and students; the state of Connecticut and the BOR do not respect our labor, nor do they appreciate our talents and intellect. Why should we stay?

Regardless of the outcome of the contract negations or whether specific provisions are reinstated, junior faculty have been wounded by the fact that our employers would treat us with such disrespect and disregard.

I accepted the position at CCSU with an eagerness to devote my talents and energy to students that deserve my commitment, I had hoped that my new institution would treat me and other members of the faculty with respect and dignity, to receive adequate support for our teaching and scholarship, and be rewarded and appreciated for our efforts. Thanks to the BOR, CCSU now runs the real risk of losing some of its newest and best. If you value CCSU and its existing faculty members, the BOR’s proposals need to resisted by all of us.

— A concerned CCSU Junior Faculty member.

Letter to the Editor: Student Leaders Must Lead in a Direction

By Teige Christiano

Feilis Leo, traditionally called the African Lion. A menacing roar irrefutably decrees its dominance; not to mention the various tools of survival it comes equipped with, like big pointy teeth. Alone, this beast conquers; together rules. The pride instinctually hunts, travels, and raises their young as a unit. A mission of survival overwhelmingly achieved through cooperation.

As student leaders we acknowledge that cooperation within organizations is imperative. However, at times our groups face barriers due to lack of communication. This causes unintended tension within the organization and impact productivity. We can observe this within the Student Government Association as of recent. As a Senator of the SGA I can personally attest to the uneasy atmosphere and divergent agendas. If asked, every lion in a pride could explain that survival is their mission. Dissimilarly, if asked their purpose, no two SGA Senators would give the same answer.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said that, “A genuine leader isn’t the seeker of consequence, but a molder of consensus.” The goals established for ourselves and our organizations require a common understanding of a mission statement. When communication and collaboration are hindered, the very commonality that drew individuals together can be forgotten. The obligation of a leader is to emphasize the foremost pursuits of assembly. I encourage all student leaders to initiate a conversation about your organization’s mission statement. All too often do we assume the rational of membership. Hence, the target objective becomes ambiguous and utterly un-interpretable. This allows for the intentions of an organization to be metaphorically yanked in various directions. Thus, the progress of undertaken initiatives is impeded.

Opening a conversation about the primary goal gives opportunity for differing perspectives to be voiced. Communication in this way leads to community, that is, to understanding and mutual valuing. Collective acceptance of a singular mission statement strengthens an organization. The contribution of members for cooperative ventures increases when a consensus is reached.

In conclusion, I encourage student leaders to start the conversation about their own organization’s mission statement and to endorse unity and common consensus amongst the students that are being led.

Letter To The Editor: Smoking Ban Infringes on Student Rights

By David deHaas

The beginning of this fall’s semester has been tainted with an injustice. As human beings, we endure life, it is a complicated and fascinating experience, yet we have no real choice in the matter. We strive for happiness, but our existence is all there is, regardless of an individual’s happiness one still must endure. An infringement on life is not only atrocious, but artificial and meaningless; for in the words of Jean Paul Sartre, “We are condemned to be free.”

It has been announced through e-mail that a policy restricting tobacco use is in effect. There are currently four designated areas on campus where students and faculty are allowed to smoke.

The intent behind this policy is to provide a healthier environment for students, but how effective will this policy be towards achieving such honorable goals? Will the students directly benefit from such restrictions? The air quality on campus will certainly improve, resulting in a fresher experience while walking to and from classes. But what is the extent of this improvement? I am no scientist, but a quick venture into the realm of reason leads me to conclude that, due to the vastness of the outdoors, an absence of burning tobacco will only result in a small impact to air quality, only those with a keen sense of smell will be able to notice a difference.

Another hefty issue is the displeasure associated with tobacco use. First one must ask themselves, how common were such unpleasant encounters to begin with? A tobacco-smoking friend would naturally respect the wishes of a health-conscious individual — walking by tobacco smokers might cause displeasure, but only for a few moments.

A smoker is no less a human being then someone who does not smoke; the issue, it seems, is that non-smokers are bothered by the act of smoking. This constant worrying for one’s health can result in obscure thinking, distracting one from their goals and dreams. To worry about smokers and their potential impact on the health of the people around them is a far worse deficiency then smoking itself. One must keep their thoughts within the rational realm, or fall victim to the obscurity of pettiness. A certain level of acceptance between both parties must be obliged.

Tobacco is neither a good nor bad thing. It is merely a plant that the human race has historically used for recreational purposes. It is not an activity that will unravel the fabric of our university, or provide substantive distractions to students. The issue is simply insignificant, one masquerading its own tyranny.

The stigma our society has against tobacco use is caused by heavy-weight tobacco industries. If the nature of the industry was not so grotesque, if useless chemicals and additives were not included in a majority of tobacco products, the map-receptivity would not be as amplified as it is.

The issue is not one of smoking, but of freedom. Regardless of what anyone has to say about tobacco use, it is never proper course to force particular behaviors upon a population. The noblest intentions could be at the heart of such tyranny, but in order to achieve authentic harmony, the people must reach these conclusions naturally. They must cohere within the bounds of proper conduct and respect, and instead of being forced to behave in such a way, it should be the result of such freedom.

Constraints, even trivial, are dangerous endeavors. To show complete compliance supports the notion to our administrators that their reach of influence has no bounds. What will they do next? Imagine the restriction of all outside food on campus; would you comply with such a silly idea? Enforcing this current change seems to be a rigorous task; imagine the extra funding needed to compel our campus police to go out of their way to find these smoking delinquents. The purpose of law enforcement is to protect the people, but now they have an added responsibility — that of harassment.

Another issue to contemplate is of the student body, the patrons of this institution. Without the presence and tuition of the student body, there is no institution; the people are products of the functionality of the university. Treating intelligent adults in this way is beyond my scope of thinking, it’s so incomprehensible the only action I find suitable is to smoke even more tobacco then I am accustomed to, and smoking in one of the four designated areas is not the only option. Regardless of consequences, I still have the freedom to make decisions, and nothing can change that.

Fundamentally, our sense of self is synonymous with freedom. There is nothing that will change this. A fascist government’s incarceration, even death does not change the nature of our being. In order for civilization to actualize it must be done naturally, we should look at the chaos throughout our history in order to rationalize this way of thinking.

I now open the discussion to the students and faculty of CCSU. In order to understand the nature of these issues, we must partake in active dialogue with each other. I encourage everyone to question my thoughts and to give counter arguments to my reasoning. This does not mean that any of us should ever attack each other as human beings; we must only attack ideas. Chivalry is key. Arguments are not only meant to be civil, but there occurrence is entirely natural. Despite these wonders, passion tends to overwhelm reasoning, but the cure for such brutal thinking is simple enough.

Conflict is the result of misunderstandings, and I feel that the people can find solutions through their own wills by discussion — as a result, these regulations will be seen as unnecessary and a waste of efforts that could have gone towards more useful ventures.

Pulitzer Prizes Validate Role of Journalism

The Washington Post and The Guardian were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service on Monday for their work reporting the National Security Agency spying scandal that rocked the country. Based on documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, both papers revealed the widespread effort undertaking by the NSA and US government to spy on American citizens in an attempt to prevent future 9/11-esque threats.

The award echoes the one given to The New York Times in 1971 for its publication of the Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsberg that revealed the secret history of the Vietnam War and the false information fed to the public by the government.

The Post’s Barton Gellman, who had previously won a Pulitzer for his reporting on former Vice President Dick Cheney’s power within the Bush Administration, and Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewan MacAskill writing for The Guardian were the journalists given the award for their reporting.

The documents leaked by Snowden caused him to be labeled as a traitor by some and a national hero by others. The revelations of the NSA’s practices were near-instantly deemed suspicious by the American public and highlighted the need to debate the balance between governmental surveillance/national security and personal privacy. This spurred President Obama to order an investigation into governmental data surveillance, and a handful of reform bills to pass through Congress, in an attempt to safeguard users’ data and bring peace of mind to those with privacy concerns.

Columbia University in New York awards the prizes every year. They were administered this year by Sig Gissler who said the reporting by Greenwald, Poitras, MacAskill and Gellman “helped stimulate the very important discussion about the balance between privacy and security and that discussion is still going on.”

The very name of the award given to The Post and The Guardian encompasses everything journalism represents. Joseph Pulitzer was the first publisher to require university training for his journalists. He set a new standard for journalism, encouraging those who wrote for him to dig deeper. It was at Pulitzer’s newspapers that the modern responsibilities of journalism took root.

Historically, journalism has played the watch dog for big corporations and big government. Early 1900s reporters like Nellie Bly and Upton Sinclair revealed horrid conditions in a psych ward or meat packing plants. And Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein exposed Nixon’s corruption with their coverage of the Watergate Scandal.

The awards given Monday acknowledge the importance that reporting stories like the NSA spying scandal are to educating the public. They celebrate the spirit of legendary cases like that of Woodward and Bernstein.

“Public service feels like a validation of our belief in the face of some pretty strong criticism that the people have a right to take part in drawing the boundaries of secret intelligence in a democracy,” said Gellman of the distinction of the award.

Without the perseverance of journalists, activists and whistleblowers alike, these secrets would remain as such; unknown to the general public. Both the Post and the Guardian are well-deserving of these awards. In a world where journalism is constantly taking new forms, there will always be doubts that the industry will fade but stories like the NSA scandal will keep it around for generations to come.

The industry will exist as long as injustice exists. And if history is indicative of what is to come, journalism will always play an imperative role in serving the people.

Letter to the Editor

To The Editor:

A previous edition of this paper included a letter to the editor from senator on the Student Government. In this letter, the senator was upset with the “blatant waste” that has been occurring within our Student Government. This senator has failed to mention several key details.

Our Student Government Association is not in the business to “blatantly waste” student activity fees. Throughout this semester each committee, including the Finance Committee, has been hard at work helping improve our wonderful school. No senator joins SGA for personal gain or benefit. We all work hard to resolve issues, and make better our school.

The letter to the editor being referenced, has failed to mention that both of the retreats held by the SGA this year, combined, came in at a total cost that is less than the retreats of the previous year. This year the SGA spent a total of $18,093.60 ($4,549 on the Summer retreat, and $13,544 on the Winter retreat) on retreats. This points to the commitment of the Student Government in ensuring the best interest of the students whom we represent. In an attempt to keep costs as low as possible, the SGA teamed up with another on campus organization.

While yes, on this second retreat we spent a weekend at a hotel in Rhode Island, it was not all fun and games. The majority of the weekend was spent at the hotel in meetings, and in team bonding, and diversity-training activities to allow us to function better as an organization. Throughout this meeting several key changes to our Student Government was implemented. For instance, at this retreat, the Finance Committee reworked its structure to allow us to provide student organizations with more money throughout the year. The Finance Committee also changed the percentages it uses to allocate the money it is provided with each year. This reallocation of percentages makes it so that the SGA spends less money itself, and more money on the student organizations we represent. More specifically, the SGA will be spending at the very least, $30,000 more in base budgets for next year. This is not including the amount that Treasurer Kory Mills, and the Finance committee plan to move from the SGA Reserve account to our Base Budget account. Similarly, this year the finance committee has already spent $35,000 in Contingency Requests, compared to last year’s $16,000. Treasurer Kory Mills and the Finance Committee have continuously been working to ensure that more money gets spent externally, on student organizations, and less internally.

The senator who penned the previous article has also failed to mention that after the retreat, a majority of senators were outraged at the amount that was spent on that weekend. Although, the combined amounts of both the summer and winter retreats this year is less than the previous year, senators were still outraged. Out of this outrage came the desire to change the way the retreats were held. Changes to the SGA bylaws have been proposed and are being discussed to ensure that we spend less in the upcoming years. Several executive board candidates who ran in the election held before spring break even ran on the platform that they would reform SGA spending.

I agree with the senator, we need to continue to work towards the betterment of the Student Government Association; I encourage all students to get involved whether they are on the SGA or not. However, I wanted to make sure that hard work, and commitment of this year’s senate was brought to light. Yes, we spent money on a retreat, however, we spent significantly less than previous years, and we continue to work to spend more money on student organizations.


Abdallah Alsaqri
SGA Commuter Senator

Letter to the Editor #2

To Whom It May Concern:

As a Central Connecticut State University student, it was an honor to welcome the President of the United States to our campus community. CCSU is at the center of our state and the center of the lives of its students. Our campus is filled with diverse individuals who strive to go above and beyond to achieve success.

CCSU may be small, but the students here are connected by strong social and academic bonds. Unfortunately, actions of many students who express passion and devotion to CCSU were unnoticed when President Obama came to speak on March 5, 2014.

At CCSU, no matter how much you put into making this university a center of community engagement, it all comes down to who you know.

This is the sad reality many students had to come to terms with on the days prior to Obama’s speech at CCSU. Apparently, special tickets were given out to “Student Leaders,” which included special seating and close accessibility to the President. There was a rumored meet and greet for these specific ticket holders.

So the logical questions are asked: What exactly constitutes an extraordinary leader? Who had the authority to determine this criteria? The answers are unknown. However, the opinions of several students suggest the answers are that it was based on pure, unadulterated, bias.

Students with grades not up to par, who do not work to make their way through school, or are not even heavily involved, were some of the few selected to have this privileged ticket. Of course these characteristics do not define all special ticket holders, but there were students of this nature.

What about the student like myself who identify as Orientation Leaders, Peer Leaders, tutors,  club Presidents and part-time workers? What about the students that strive for success with many obstacles in their way, but manage to persevere?

There is an aspect of a good leader in each and every one of us at CCSU. However, the term “leader” is subjective. Being humble about your active engagement in CCSU affairs is not an appropriate approach.

The lesson from this Presidential visit to CCSU was simply to do as little as possible. But get into the right crowd of “prominent” student leaders, and you will reach the highest level of success.

Time for a change – Letter to the Editor

As a student senator, I recognize that all 105 clubs and organizations that rely on us for funding are all financially stressed. Over the past few years, our student government has continuously demanded that student organizations find more ways to do things with less funding and fewer resources. This year, every club had received funding cuts across the board. I remember on my first year on the senate we had funded club base budgets at $408,000 for the 2012-2013 academic year. However, this year we have only spent $355,000 on clubs based budgets. Our SGA has spent $55,000 less on clubs this year than we spent in the previous year.

                  I want to say that I completely understand the financial struggles that each and every club is going through. As a member of the finance committee, I have firsthand knowledge of the everyday struggles that clubs on our college campus face. As a President of a club myself, I know how frustrating it can get when dealing with all of the financial regulations, requirements, and conditions that our student government places on clubs.

No particular person is to blame. Nobody is at fault. I personally feel there is enough blame to go around – myself included. I am willing to admit that as a member of the finance committee I made mistakes. However, I want to make things better for everyone. I want to make sure that every club’s needs are met. That is why I am speaking out today.

I have been upset for some time at the blatant waste that has been occurring within our student government. When I was growing up, I learned that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated. Overall, I don’t feel that our student government has done such a good job of living up to that moral standard.

Over winter break, the student government held its annual retreat. One of my requirements as a senator is to attend the retreat. I could see the ocean from my hotel room. We stayed on an island in Rhode Island. However, I was told over and over again that our retreat would be relatively inexpensive. However, I learned a month after the retreat that the true cost of the retreat was over $13,000. This was paid for with your student activity fees.

A few weeks later, at the winter club fair – my clubs table was right next to the SGA table. At the SGA table they were handing out tee shirts, hats, scarves and other promotional items. My club had no promotional items to hand out. My club was denied funding for promotional items because ‘it was a luxury.’ I am not making this up – this is what we were told. Why it is considered a luxury for my club to have promotional items, but not the SGA?

Last year, over 20 organizations asked for funding for tee shirts in their base budget requests. Every club was denied. However, everybody elected to the senate received a free tee shirt (I refuse to wear my SGA shirt around campus because I feel it is wrong to tell every club that they can’t have clothing for their members even though SGA members received free tee shirts for our organization).

It is time for a change. Our SGA has given itself many luxuries that we’ve denied to everyone else. JFK once said, “if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” It is in that spirit that I am writing this letter. This week marks the start of the base budgeting process. Reach out to your elected representatives. Tell them that the 105 clubs and organizations deserve better. I write this letter to the editor in the hope that I can change things for the better. However, I can’t do this alone. I need your help and your support.


Bobby Berriault

SGA Senator