In Monday’s Collegian we read about possible problems with the

Associated Students of CSU election. In the story and in a related

column possible problems with the new electronic voting system are

brought to light. Was there something wrong with the computer

code?

If Katie Clausen and Ben Goldstein had a friend with access to

the code they could have inserted a line of code that changed every

other vote for Dustin Zvonek and Kyle McCarthy to Katie and Ben.

This would have been more than enough to tip the election. The

problem is that we will never know because there are no ballots to

recount. All we have is a computer generated tally of the

“votes.”

We all remember Florida, but at least there were ballots to

recount there. This fall many votes for U.S. president will be cast

on new electronic voting machines. These machines are designed to

deal with Florida-style problems. If our ASCCU election is any

indication we could be in for another tumultuous election this

fall. Only this time there won’t be any paper to recount.

You can see how this works at

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/.

Brian Depew

Graduate Student

It’s easy to blame poor advising when you make inefficient class

choices at CSU, as Christopher Ortiz and Nicole Davis did in

Monday’s Collegian. Poor advising is sometimes what’s wrong, but so

are limited class sections and unprepared students making poor

choices. Most advisers I know work hard to advise students

well.

Graduation requirements are a moving target as difficult to pin

down as a journalism student dodging his math requirement. Despite

this complexity, many students come to advising sessions (if they

show up at all) without their checklists, without ever having

studied university or college requirements and without the

willingness to even count their upper-division credits themselves.

Once advised, they register for something else, sometimes because

classes are full, sometimes because the urge to register for a

class that will not further their degree overwhelms them at the

checkout counter like an impulse purchase of a pack of gum.

I have spent more time in the last three weeks advising students

than I have advising my own daughter, and it’s disheartening to

read an editorial that blames everyone but students. Whose

responsibility is it to register for the right classes in the most

efficient order? It’s everyone’s. The adviser’s, the university’s,

and most certainly students.

Mistakes will happen even when we’re all doing our best because

this is a difficult game of Twister we’re playing. Chris and Nicole

used about 3 percent of their editorial to accept some of the

burden — why don’t they step up to the plate and accept at least

half?

P.S. If we don’t remember your name, it’s only because we’re

old. This is even more inconvenient for us than it is for you.

Amy Bernard Satterfield

Senior Lecturer and Adviser

Department of Journalism and Technical Communication

The April 13 edition of the Collegian included a letter to the

editor by CSU Republican Chairman Chuck Fogland regarding a guest

speaker brought to campus by the Palestinian Student Association

via ASCSU. Fogland says he was “appalled” at the speaker’s “bigoted

statements” about Zionists. I can’t speak on behalf of PSA or the

speaker they brought, but to clarify, Zionism is a political

ideology, not a culture of identity such as an ethnic group. So, by

definition, you can’t be bigoted towards Zionists anymore than you

can be bigoted towards ‘liberals’ or ‘conservatives.’ Nor is it

necessarily anti-Semitic to admonish the policies of the political

entity known as Israel.

Semantics aside, Fogland brought up interesting points about how

he feels that ASCSU unfairly allocates funds to PSA and “other

groups like Action Awareness and F.R.E.E.” to “actively oppose a

party or candidate or group of candidates.” For the record,

F.R.E.E. has never supported or opposed any party or candidate. Nor

does the group have any desire to do so. The only times we have

received ASCSU funds were for speakers to talk about issues

relating to the global economy.

Although some of his information is inaccurate, I still applaud

Mr. Fogland for raising concerns tantamount to charges of taxation

without representation. If he were truly appalled at ASCSU for

funding certain programs he doesn’t like, it would only be

consistent to also be appalled at ASCSU’s funding for pro-Israel

speakers that they’ve also sponsored. More importantly, what about

the taxation of American citizens to pay for policies (not just

speeches) that many of them disagree with, such as invading other

countries or putting corporations like Lockheed Martin or Exxon on

welfare (policies that have been enacted by administrations of both

parties)?

But that’s beside the point. Supreme Court rulings have ruled

over and over again that universities cannot deny funding for

student groups to bring events to campus that might include views

that some students disagree with, because doing so would undermine

the nature of public universities as open forums where ideas should

be freely expressed. Freedom of speech is utterly meaningless and

worthless if it does not extend to speech that you don’t happen to

like.

Matt Glesmann

Senior, Political Science

President, F.R.E.E. (Finding Racial and Economic Equality)

Ms. Burd’s article stated that “A national park in Peru is being

threatened by fossil fuel drilling and the lasting impact of a U.S.

fueled drug trade.” This is likely her summary of a Chicago Tribune

article from earlier this week.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0404120166apr12,1,1855648.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Significantly, her paraphrase of the article is contrary to the

text in the Tribune: “(Occidental Petroleum) astonished everybody

last spring by withdrawing from the (national park).”

Though I agreed with Ms Burd’s environmental concerns, accuracy

should always be the mark of sterling journalism.

Eduardo Romero

I am writing in response to the so-called “graffiti-wars”

occurring on our campus. Today, while walking in and around the LSC

plaza, I came across no less than six areas of concrete emblazoned

with “Stop Liberal Graffiti” and the College Republicans’

website.

I have been particularly amazed by the ever-changing “art” on my

seminar desk. The first day, I noticed the usual “Stop Liberal

Graffiti” message etched into the top. The next day, “Stop

Conservative Graffiti” had been added, and finally a message

utilizing the F-bomb and our current president’s name. Surely I am

not the only one to realize the irony of these messages.

It is hard to believe that any educated student on this campus

could commit such an act of hypocrisy. I am seriously considering

adding my own message: “Grow up — All of you!” Conservatives,

liberals and independents alike should be focused on conveying

their party’s platform to CSU students, not alienating them with

such juvenile rivalries. The college demographic is one that will

prove to be critical in this coming election year, as Senator John

Kerry has been wise enough to acknowledge.

All party organizations need to stop and ask themselves “What do

we stand for?” and then inform students on campus what that stance

is. From there, it is up to us to reflect on the excellent

education we are receiving by respecting differing opinions.

Elizabeth Dishong

Sophomore, microbiology

I am writing in response to the so-called “graffiti-wars”

occurring on our campus. Today, while walking in and around the LSC

plaza, I came across no less than six areas of concrete emblazoned

with “Stop Liberal Graffiti” and the College Republicans’

website.

I have been particularly amazed by the ever-changing “art” on my

seminar desk. The first day, I noticed the usual “Stop Liberal

Graffiti” message etched into the top. The next day, “Stop

Conservative Graffiti” had been added, and finally a message

utilizing the F-bomb and our current president’s name. Surely I am

not the only one to realize the irony of these messages.

It is hard to believe that any educated student on this campus

could commit such an act of hypocrisy. I am seriously considering

adding my own message: “Grow up — All of you!” Conservatives,

liberals and independents alike should be focused on conveying

their party’s platform to CSU students, not alienating them with

such juvenile rivalries. The college demographic is one that will

prove to be critical in this coming election year, as Senator John

Kerry has been wise enough to acknowledge.

All party organizations need to stop and ask themselves “What do

we stand for?” and then inform students on campus what that stance

is. From there, it is up to us to reflect on the excellent

education we are receiving by respecting differing opinions.

Elizabeth Dishong

Sophomore, microbiology