Image over substance

An article Wednesday stated that CMU is planning to spend $10.9 million in University Center renovations. I am sure that this decision was made with regard to the student body’s well-being.

After all, a university that has difficulty with state funding and enrollment declines would make a wise decision on behalf of its student body. Surely, this is the superior decision, compared to the cost of fostering CMU students through scholarship, research grants, academic learning environment, health insurance, improvements in technology or other educationally enriching activities.

This plan will benefit all students by creating offices and services located more conveniently to make trips to less confusing while trying desperately how to fund another semester’s education.

Luckily, stressed and deprived students will be able to quench their thirst for assistance through a game of pool or foosball. Thank you, CMU, for giving me a better facility in which to pay my high tuition. These are funds well spent.

Adrienne West
New York graduate student

Forced remodeling

CMU students, how would you like to spend $10.9 million?

This funding could have been put to a vote, but students were given only one option: remodel the University Center.

Although students might have ultimately chosen the UC project, several other avenues could have been explored. The money could have been allocated directly to improving recreational activities available in the dorms. One hundred additional supplemental instructor positions could have been created for each of the most difficult classes, for the next several decades.

It could have generated more than 3,000 summer research positions, to boost employment and foster research. The next 18 years of graduate assistants could have actually been allotted low-cost health insurance.

Students were not given these choices, nor asked to generate their own ideas. Recent publications by the National Science Foundation and the American Psychological Association indicate that investing the money directly in people increases retention, attracts more and better applicants, improves the university’s reputation and yields increased alumni donations.

Michael Hoerger
Midland graduate student

Better ways to spend money

We here in Michigan are going through a fiscal crisis. In college we are feeling it as much as anyone.

Over the last year we have seen the CMU Promise destroyed and have had rising tuition costs looming over our heads. Yet now I read that somehow we have more than $10 million tucked away to fix up something that is not broken.

Did I miss something? With all that could be paid for with $10 million, we have decided to allocate those funds to fixing the UC? Did students have a say?

There are many other ways to spend the money that would “benefit the university” more than fixing the UC. Maybe the people in charge need to be more creative, or better yet ask the people who live and work here what needs to be changed. They would be surprised by what they would find out.

Daniel Sturgeon
Muskegon graduate student

Campus Conservatives fight uphill battle

I would like to praise the Campus Conservatives. During this year, they have organized and sponsored a number of events to bring better understanding of political, economic and security issues to the CMU community. The amount of efforts they dedicated to it was much greater than what one would expect from a modest-sized student group.

Unfortunately, the playing field is by no means level for them. For example, the political science department sponsors a number of activities, including the panel at which students were given credit for listening to statements like the preposterous one made by Dr. Motaz Fattah, that the Islamic conquest of the Mesopotamia in the seventh century was undertaken to get rid of the Roman occupation (“the pizza people,” as he called them. I can only imagine what he teaches in his classes).

The same department promoted a student who willingly served as a human shield for Arab terrorists, and on the official departmental Web site. But they would never support any conservative event. I would like to encourage those who care about the future of this country to pay more attention to both sides.

Whether you agree with either of them or not, staying informed helps to make educated decisions and recognize misinformation when you see it.

George Kaminski
Assistant professor of chemistry

Sign petition to replace confusing, ineffective tax code

That wonderful date of April 15 is less than a week away.

Some of us are getting refunds from the state and federal government, some of us have to pay the state and federal governments and some are getting a refund from one government that has to go toward paying the other (which is the situation I’m in).

The shame is that we never know how much we are actually going to be taxed due to the complex mess of tax laws on state and federal books.

As Michigan residents, the issue of state taxes is certainly a sour one given the recent increase. This unfortunate event is going to do nothing but further hurt Michigan’s already-stunted economy.

The creation of the Michigan Business Tax is doing nothing but confusing business owners – even my dad’s accountant wasn’t quite sure what all had to be paid under this replacement for the SBT.

However, the Michigan Fair Tax initiative offers a simple way to fix the complexities and other problems surrounding Michigan’s current methodology of taxation.

With this Fair Tax policy in play, in exchange for a 3.75 percent raise to the state sales tax (bringing it to 9.75 percent), the Michigan Business Tax, Personal Property Tax, 6 mill School Education Tax and Michigan Income Tax would be eliminated.

The move to a consumption-based tax policy like this is going to be nothing but good news for the state. For one thing, it’s going to eliminate a considerable amount of taxes that currently aren’t seen due to black market happenings given that taxes are collected at the cash register.

Another benefit is the simplification of the tax code, which in turn would lower the overhead required for the collection of these funds. There of course is also the important fact that state legislators couldn’t be gamed by lobbyists for special tax privileges.

This tax wouldn’t be regressive, either. Built into it is a ‘prebate’ paid out monthly that reimburses that 9.75 percent based on poverty guidelines.

So for example, let’s say we have a family of four that earns right on the poverty line ($21,200) and spends 100 percent of that on goods in-state. Their effective taxation would be 0 percent due to the fact that they are paid $172.25 monthly, which summed over the course of a year comes out to $2,067 – 9.75 percent of their spending and directly countering taxes paid on goods needed to survive.

Another thing to note is that the prebate is paid to all households, not just those on or below the poverty line. This has the consequence of lowering the effective tax rate. If that same family of four made $75,000 and subsequently spent all of it, their effective tax rate is really closer to 6.99 percent (taxes paid being $5245.50 after prebate). Also, one must keep in mind that those who can conserve their money and spend less see even better effective tax rates.

I urge everyone to visit fairtaxmi.org and get further information about the initiative. In addition to offering additional information about the tax, the Web site offers contact information for organizers of the initiative as well as an analysis prepared by economics professors from Hillsdale who show this plan would provide a fair, revenue-neutral alternative to the mess our state currently has for its tax system.

In order to get on the November ballot, we need to collect 381,000 valid signatures by July 7.

Those wishing to get more information or sign the petition may contact me or visit the Web site to find the coordinator for their county. I would be more than happy to address any concerns and answer any questions you may have.

Jason Gillman Jr.
Traverse City junior

Teacher conference was well-organized success

On Saturday, April 5, approximately 475 people attended the third annual Learn Today, Teach Tomorrow professional development conference for pre-service teachers.

It was a highly successful conference, well-organized and featuring an engaging keynote speaker and 55 sessions presented by educators from all content area fields and from around the state.

I would like to commend all who attended the conference, giving up a beautiful spring day to advance their knowledge of teaching and to learn more about the profession they are about to enter.

And they attended the conference well; as one presenter wrote the day after the conference (to the steering committee), “As a presenter, I was amazed and gratified at the number of people who showed up for my session. Every seat was filled and much of the floor space as well, and the audience was attentive and courteous” (Carol Sliwka, Secondary ELA Consultant, Monroe Public Schools).

While most of the attendees were CMU students, it is also noteworthy that the attendees also represented the following educational institutions: Albion College, Aquinas College, Baker College, Grand Valley State University, Madonna University, Michigan State University, Oakland University, Olivet College, Spring Arbor University and Saginaw Valley University, as well as Mount Pleasant High School students and previous CMU graduates and SVSU graduates.

I would particularly like to commend the 16 representatives of the eight professional student organizations who gave up almost a year of their Sunday evenings to plan and deliver such a successful conference: Deidra LaPointe, Bridgette Patrona and Barbara Larkin from AEYC; Stephanie Hilliard and Katie Rockentine from CLASS-IRA; Crystal Brownrigg and Susan Smydra from CMLACMU; Courtney Harless, Christina Stanley and Renee Heinz from KDE; Tori Steerzer and Elecia Miller from KDP; Ashley Bendert and Stacy DeSanto from NSTA; Shannon Pardon from SCEC,;and Cassandra Gillenwater and Katie Loftus from SMEA.

Each one of these representatives took on part of the tasks necessary to pull off such a large and successful conference — contacting speakers, registration, name tags and badges, breakfast orders, lunch orders, conference programs, signs, presenter luncheon, presenter gifts, volunteers and more.

Whatever it takes to deliver a professional conference, they did it, and they did it well! I feel very privileged to have worked with them this year and I tip my hat to their successful effort. I believe those who attended the conference – and CMU – should also applaud them, because their efforts continue to support the reputation that CMU has in teacher education.

Norma Bailey
Professor of Middle Level Education

Renovations not worth multi-million dollar price tag

Is the project of remodeling the Bovee University Center, costing $10.9 million, really in the best interest of CMU students, or is there a better way to spend such a large amount of university funds?

It seems that the most logical way of determining this would be to ask for students’ opinions of how to appropriate these funds before making such a large-scale decision.

While it’s great that the developers want to keep “the student’s point of view in mind,” I wonder how much the university is really considering the students’ voice in making such decisions.

It is difficult for me to see the long-term (or short-term) benefits to adding foosball tables and a video lounge when the money could be spent on things that would enhance the reputation of the school, such as increased research positions for students.

Additionally, I don’t think that it’s necessarily a bad thing that more students prefer spending time at the library over the UC.

While decision-making regarding school budgets is indeed a complex process, I think it’s time CMU starts considering what the students actually want when making funding decisions rather than asking for input after the decisions have already been made.

Catherine Currell
Graduate assistant

E-mail the author: defaultuser