Is MassPIRG worth our money?

By Jeff Trull

This week, UMD students will again be voting whether or not to continue MassPIRG funding through a $9 waivable fee per student each semester. Although some of MassPIRG’s accomplishments are notable, other campaigns have been less successful. While the $9 fee is not compulsory, should MassPIRG still be granted the right to raise money this way?

MassPIRG boasts a long list of accomplishments. The UMD MassPIRG chapter is one of twenty chapters throughout Massachusetts, some of which have been around 30 years. The group takes on many global, social and political issues, from global warming to textbook costs. The group is comprised of a campus organizer, work-study students, and volunteers. This year at UMass Dartmouth, the group organized many efforts to combat global warming. Events included a teach-in, which 1,500 colleges and universities across the country participated in. The group has co-sponsored the sustainability film series on campus and collected signatures in support of the Global Warming Solutions Act. Other than global warming, MassPIRG’s campaigns include hunger and homelessness, Water Watch, credit cards and affordable textbooks. All of these campaigns, which are detailed on masspirgstudents.org, appear to be noble ventures.

Despite MassPIRG’s lengthy list of undertakings, I question the group’s true accomplishments. I participated in MassPIRG three years ago. One event I was involved in, the “Hunger Cleanup,” was poorly organized and insignificant. Our group of volunteers set out to a women’s shelter in New Bedford on a Saturday morning in spring. We were to clean up trash and other debris at the shelter. However, upon arriving, the shelter that was supposed to be expecting us had no idea who we even were. After allowing us to clean up their property anyway, we discovered that there was hardly a piece of trash on the premises. Needless to say, this was the last MassPIRG event that I participated in.

On top of this failure of an event, I was also pestered by MassPIRG leadership to participate in activities that I did not enjoy. I felt that I was always being asked to help out with more and more things. At meetings, the leaders insisted that I help out with tabling or other activities. I would get emails and even phone calls regarding MassPIRG events. Other students that I worked with felt the same way about how much they were asked to do. Over the past few years I have heard several other students discourage others from joining the group.

The group has also touted their “affordable textbooks” campaign for several years now (at least the past three years I’ve been at UMD). While they claim to do a lot for the issue, like gather signatures and have resolutions passed by UMD’s Student Senate, I don’t see any real changes that have been made. I agree that textbook prices are out of control, but I do not think that these measures are providing any solutions to the problem. While MassPIRG has helped draft some sort of bill in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, no law has been passed as of yet. I realize that change takes time and energy, but pointless actions aimed at reducing textbook costs do not solve any problems at the end of the day.

Aside from MassPIRG, there are other groups on campus that participate in similar activities. Social Change Society (SCS) was created by students who did not like MassPIRG’s leadership and campaigns. Since being established a few years ago, SCS has run several successful events, such as their “Human Rights Awareness Week.” This group has been able to plan plenty of events on a budget that is only a fraction of MassPIRG’s. Of course, SCS does not have a $9 waivable fee like MassPIRG, but receives funding from Student Senate like other student-run organizations.

All things considered, is MassPIRG worth the $9 that many students donate each semester? Despite my hesitancy to support this organization, I would still vote in favor of allowing the $9 waivable fee to be included in UMD tuition. Some students may like the organization, and others may not. The biggest factor is that the fee is still optional. No one is required to fund the group. Even so, paying $9 seems a small price for the accomplishments, even if some of them are trivial. The group does take on important issues and does an adequate job in accomplishing goals on at least some of these issues. I am definitely in favor of raising awareness of issues like global warming and credit cards. The group also offers work-study internships to UMD students, which are much better for both the student and the school compared to other work-study positions. My only hope is that MassPIRG approaches the issues that it takes on in a manner that leads to real solutions, not just a bunch of hyped-up failures.

Parking woes continue to bug students

By Greg Gravelle

It has become strikingly clear to me that parking at UMass Dartmouth is critically inadequate for the number of students requiring it.   There are a number of flaws with the system of parking for students on campus. These defects include the cost structure of parking permits, as well as the way parking violations are handled on campus. Additionally, certain areas of campus have grossly insufficient spaces for residents, particularly at the Cedar Dell apartments.  If the administration would like UMass Dartmouth to improve as an institution overall, it should heed the criticism by the overwhelming majority of students regarding parking on campus.

The first issue that many students have with student parking policies at UMass Dartmouth is the cost structure of parking permits.  Different parking permits cost different amounts, depending on the type of permit. Where I live, for example, requires a Cedar Dell parking permit, which costs $50 more than a commuter parking permit.  While this may seem reasonable, since a car is less necessary to those students living on campus, in reality it is simply unfair.  A considerable number of Cedar Dell residents with the appropriate parking permits still end up parking in commuter parking and far away lots because there is insufficient parking for Cedar Dell. At that point, it becomes unfair to charge students more for a permit, when they are parking in the same inconvenient places.

Imagine if you had front-row tickets to a Red Sox game, but if someone got to your seats before you, you had to sit in the bleachers.  This appropriately describes the parking situation at Cedar Dell and other areas of campus.  Many students counter the insufficient parking at Cedar Dell by creating their own spots, including myself.  On April 2, I parked my car diagonally in a space on the side of Cedar Dell Road, in which my car was pulled entirely off the road and had one tire on the grass.  I parked my car in this manner because the size of the last available space was slightly too small to fit my car. The following morning, I had been issued 3 parking tickets between 2:01 a.m. and 2:03 a.m.; “Illegal Angle Parking, $10,” “Double Parking, $15” and “Parking on Grass, $15.” While my car was clearly parked in violation of a few arbitrary parking rules, it was clearly parked in that manner out of necessity, not in an attempt to distract the UMass Dartmouth Police from fighting crime.

It is vital that the school’s administration takes proactive steps to solve its parking system, as it is entirely sub-par for a school of this size.  Perhaps a parking garage would help the parking situation, but I do not have all the answers.  It may sound as though I am bitter because I have personally received a pile of parking tickets for attempting to park within a reasonable distance from my residence; however, next time a campus police officer is preparing to write a Cedar Dell resident a ticket for “Parking on Grass, Illegal Angle Parking, and Double Parking,” I feel it only fair that this officer park his cruiser in Lot 13 and walk to Cedar Dell at 2 a.m. to deliver the ticket.

Nuanced public policy needed for marijuana

By Lee Lukoff

Since 1914, the federal government has incrementally adopted stricter laws regulating the use of marijuana. In 1969, in an effort to get tough on drugs, President Richard Nixon launched “The War on Drugs.” Efforts included creating federal agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, which became responsible for regulating drugs like marijuana. Since these public policies were implemented, it has been estimated by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics that American taxpayers are now spending more than a billion dollars per year to incarcerate citizens who were charged with being in possession of marijuana. Despite the large increase in government spending, over 93 million Americans have tried marijuana at least once. It’s safe to say that government programs intended to stop usage of drugs like marijuana have failed and are too costly to be continued.

Since these programs have been implemented and it has become illegal to smoke or sell marijuana, many innocent civilians have been wrongfully imprisoned. I viewed a YouTube video about an individual who was in a wheelchair with a serious nerve disorder. He claimed that marijuana was the only thing that could cure his pain, yet he was arrested for using medical marijuana. Seeing suffering people arrested for smoking a little bit of marijuana is unnecessary. How is justice being served when such a person is not harming society? The federal government must realize that when they imprison innocent people who smoke pot, they are diluting the effectiveness of our justice system in many ways.

It’s been estimated that approximately 2.3 million Americans are currently imprisoned. Out of the total prison population about 60% are in jail for drug related offenses. The federal government’s war on drugs has effectively swamped our court system with many petty cases which waste the valuable resources that our judges and prosecutors need to carry out trials on issues of more importance to society. The current federal laws regarding marijuana possession are far too strict. Currently, possession of marijuana is punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. For further convictions, the penalties are even higher, including mandatory jail time. These policies we have seen our prison population rise due to the high number of convictions related to marijuana-related offenses.

Since these drug programs have failed and our justice system has become strained, our elected officials, like Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, believe that drug enforcement policies are a waste of money and resources. Marijuana proponents like Rep. Frank argue that marijuana should become a states’ rights issue and should be legalized or banned based on the will of the people in each state. I agree with part of Rep. Frank’s position on this issue because since the constitution is silent on the issue of marijuana, giving the states the right to decide for themselves. While this is certainly a judicial and philosophical argument in favor of state’s rights, I find that such a proposal could become a problematic public policy if certain safeguards are not implemented.

If the process of legalization is to go through, a series of both federal and state measures must be adopted. The 10th amendment states that the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. If marijuana is to be completely legalized, the federal government should take a more active role in regulating the sale of marijuana across state lines. By doing this, the federal government would ensure that a narcotics ring would not develop within our borders. Individual states would also have the same responsibility. If they fail to do so, they would lose the ability to tax a new commodity that would provide an alternate source of revenue to fund other government programs. It would also create a potential black market if such systems are not regulated in the proper fashion.

While decriminalization and legalization are certainly feasible options regarding marijuana, I believe that governments should not encourage marijuana use. The federal and state governments must be adamant that marijuana should never become a subsidized farm product. Doing so would only encourage more people to smoke at the expense of the taxpayer. If the government were to defer the use of marijuana to be consumed at the liberty of the individual, individuals must assume that the responsibility for using it. The government should not be rewarding people with any type of federally subsidized healthcare insurance. Studies have been conducted that reveal the negative side effects of using marijuana. Prolonged Marijuana use has been known to weaken the immune system and even trigger mental illness. If people are consciously choosing to negatively impact their health in these ways, why should the taxpayers be burdened for paying the healthcare expenses for this person? Liberty is a two way street in regards to marijuana policy. Those who consciously decide to smoke must take into effect the possible consequences of their actions.

Another part about legalization of marijuana that government must be aware of is the social effects of drug use upon a family. Marijuana should never be consumed in the presence of children. Since second hand marijuana smoke can cause children to get high and negatively affect their health, competent parents should refrain from using marijuana around children. If they fail to do so, parents should be charged with a crime and should lose there right to have custody of there children. While such a position may be extreme, I believe that if the substance were alcohol, you would agree that parents who are intoxicated are not raising their children in the proper environment.

It is my belief that the federal government should change its marijuana policy by ending all criminal penalties on individuals who use marijuana for recreational or medicinal purposes. Criminal charges for marijuana use only bog down our country’s judicial process and fill our prisons with many people who are not a real threat to society. However, it must be known that if both the federal and state governments are ready to legalize marijuana they must be prepared to be able to regulate the product. This system should provide ample warning about the harmful effects that marijuana can have on an individual’s health and on children.

The arms race goes to college

By Lance Gagnon

It’s been a year since the Virginia Tech massacre, but students across America haven’t forgot it. The shock of a gun-toting murderer running around one of our universities shook students everywhere, causing them to worry that it may happen at their own schools. One year later, the fear hasn’t decreased, and has only become worse. A new national student organization, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, is campaigning for the right to carry guns on campuses. If they succeed, they may make college an even more dangerous place than before.

The group, which was created shortly after the V-Tech incident, is now represented at 215 campuses nationwide, with over 25,000 members in its Facebook group alone. According to its Facbook group, its goals are both to “dispel the many myths about concealed carry” and to “push state legislatures and school administrations to grant concealed handgun license holders... the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses.” It assumes that college would be safer if students were carrying guns in preparation for an incident similar to the one at V-Tech.

However, this assumption doesn’t fit well into the reality of college life. As we have seen at UMass Dartmouth, the campus can be a chaotic place already. The public safety log has had several counts of vandalism and fighting reported in it. Likewise, we have various incidents of students getting drunk on campus like at any other university. Now imagine how this will turn out once guns are added to the equation. In all likelihood, many of the “responsible gun owners” that SCCC supports would end up shooting someone not out of self defense, but out of mere stupidity.

SCCC members claim that they would only use their guns in an incident like the V-Tech massacre, but even this situation puts the campus community at serious risk. The advantage of having the student body unarmed is that if someone brings a gun to the campus and starts shooting it up they will be the only one carrying a gun. This makes it easier to determine who the perpetrator is, thus allowing the incident to end sooner. If various students are carrying guns around, the shooter will be lost in a sea of gun owners.

And the reactions of these gun owners to each other could get more people killed. If they start running around campus with a gun drawn to kill the shooter themselves, fellow gun owners may mistake them for the shooter. The result could be a shoot out between two or more students based entirely on the assumption that each other is the real shooter. At the end of the day, the self-appointed heroes of the campus would simply become accomplices to the murderer.

Gun advocates will further argue that a ban on guns on campus will not stop criminals from bringing guns to campus entirely. And while this may be true, it does not justify the creation of an arms race with them on campus. When arguing against gun bans in general, gun advocates often claim that criminals will just get weapons through illegal means. If this is so, then the black market would give them the best method of attacking a campus populated by handgun owners: heavier weaponry.

If they can get weapons on the black market as gun advocates claim, then they will have access to automatic weaponry, which mere handgun owners will not be well equipped to fight. Handgun owners could upgrade to automatic weaponry themselves, but this would cause criminals to upgrade to something more powerful and potentially more covert, such as explosives. Sure, the risk of someone using a handgun on campus may be scary, but we shouldn’t provoke anything worse than that by starting a small-scale arms race.

But the paranoid fantasies of gun advocates aside, the risk of a shooting is highly exaggerated. College shootings are few and far in between; they only appear to be a major risk because the media portrays them as something more widespread than their actual potential. If we were to allow gun advocates to play out their fantasies of being Bruce Willis in “Die Hard,” we would only see that potential increase. Without guns, college students are already quite safe from getting killed by other students. And they will likely stay that way as long as we don’t give concealed carry a shot.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

RA Appreciation Week: Why do we need to thank them?

Dear UMass Dartmouth residential community,

As some of you may know, April 14 to 18 is RA Appreciation Week. Yes, RAs are paid para-professionals of the University and yes, it is their job to do the wonderful things they do to help make the residence halls and apartments nice places to live. However, as anyone who spends a few moments talking with or watching their RA will clearly see; these are special people!

Most of you have interacted with your RA when you needed something; maybe you had a question, were in trouble, needed advice, or maybe you needed a supportive ear. Many of you have asked your RA to help get something fixed in your room or discussed things with your RA that you wouldn’t discuss with anyone else at the University, and sometimes even your family. Some of you have attended programs sponsored by your RA for the purpose of bringing people together to have some fun, to learn something, or to simply help make connections so residents can feel more comfortable where they live.

In our minds, RAs are very special people. While they do get paid, there is no way a University could ever afford to fully pay them what they are worth! How does one place a price tag on a fellow student who despite dealing with the same stressors regarding academic work, family issues, and social challenges, still devotes inordinate amounts of time to making their environment a better place to live and to helping their residents reduce their stress so they can better enjoy their UMass Dartmouth experience?

This is precisely why the professional staff of the Office of Housing and Residential Life are sponsoring the RA Appreciation Week, and as two people who have seen the positive results of the efforts of your RAs this year, we encourage you to do something special for your RA — write them a nice note, give him/her a flower, tell them you appreciate their efforts, or even walk up to him or her and say, “Yo — whatsup — thanks.” It will make all the difference in the world to them.

On behalf of all of our Student Affairs colleagues — Happy RA Appreciation Week, and we send our deep appreciation and thank you to all the RAs.

Dr. Jean Kim,Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

Dr. David Milstone, Assoc.Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

SOUL SIGHTINGS

Take some time to ‘fellowship’ on campus

It has been my privilege over the past several years to watch some of UMass Dartmouth’s finest serve as Presidents of the UMassDartmouth Christian Fellowship. The Fellowship (associated with Campus Crusade for Christ) has existed on campus for over 25 years and has grown considerably in recent years. The Fellowship engages many activities for spiritual growth and service, including weekly general fellowship meetings, Bible studies, many social and fun events, leadership training, outreach events, concerts, an Alpha ministry, and short-term missions and service trips and coordinated support. The club is sponsoring the Blue Sky Nine concert on April 22 at 8 p.m. this year as well. President-elect for 2008-09 is Lauren Watka, a Biology and French major, who has just returned from a semester of study in Aix, France. Outgoing President (2006-2008) is Megan Pacheco Class of ‘08 (left in the picture), who will be going to Brazil with Campus Crusade for Christ for a one-year internship. Kat Gately (‘06, right in the picture) was President for 2005-2006 and is now on Staff with Campus Crusade in Mexico City. Kwabena (Ben) Kantanka (class of ‘07 and originally from Ghana) was President 2004-2005. He is now a civil engineer with the Massachusetts Department of Highways in Worcester, MA. Willio Destin (class of ‘04 and from Cambridge, MA and Haiti) was President 2003-2004 and is now a third year seminary (Master of Divinity) student at The Master’s Seminary in Sun Valley, California.  He is developing a Bible Institute in Haiti, having made several trips there, including a 2006 trip accompanied by UMass Dartmouth graduates Edwin Menon, Wadley DaSilva and myself. Edwin Menon, class of ‘03 and originally from Singapore, was President 2001-03 and is now a math teacher at Hull High School. He is beginning a special continuing education course at Eastern Nazarene College for high school principals. Professor Dorothy Bergeron (Medical Laboratory Science) is the faculty sponsor and is much appreciated by the Christian Fellowship. For more info in the Christian followship, please visit the website at www.umdcf.com.

Rev. Neil Damgaard
Protestant Chaplain