Ellington

In the past few years, the institutions of the state of Washington, as well as the entire country, have been forced to make extremely difficult decisions regarding their budgets. The University of Washington’s budget cut for 2009-10 has made the administration make many changes. From information gathered in a Seattle Times article written by Nick Perry in April 2009 and a blog post written by President Mark Emmert in Nov. 2009, it is clear which parts of our university life the UW administration finds most important to success as one of the top public research schools in the country. On the contrary, the articles also reveal parts of the school that will be lost to the budget black hole.

Toward the beginning of the UW budget discussions, projected areas to be saved from being cut included all research projects, teaching assistants and the ability to continue the flow and variety of incoming freshmen. A few months later, however, Emmert’s blog to the students and staff of the UW stated nothing about preserving teaching assistants and a lot about saving the research aspect of our college. He also goes on to say in his blog that producing freshmen that can graduate and obtain bachelor’s degrees is very important to him.

Though the aspects of the UW that are being saved from the budget crisis are seemingly crucial to the functionality of the UW, they begin to seem less important the more I understand what will be cut from the budget. In May 2009, shortly after learning of the expansive $73 million cut, the administration estimated class offerings, staff support, technology assistance, writing centers and world-class faculty would be eliminated from the budget.

Cuts are generally understandable; we are in a slumped era of American history, one in which people are nervous or unable to spend money, thus no tax is generated, and obviously schools should be cut first from the state budget, right? And then that means state universities, such as ours, should make cuts to things that are much more important to the functionality of a university than things that allow us to keep our name as a top research university, right?

Wrong. What the administration fails to acknowledge is that the cuts being made will do exactly the opposite of the goals Emmert has for the university. What needs to be recognized is that writing centers, libraries, teaching assistants, technology assistance, staff support, worldly professors, affordable tuition and smaller class sizes are essential for a complete education. How does Emmert believe he will have people graduating with bachelor’s degrees and participating in research if no student is able to learn in the first place? These cuts could ultimately be the stone that hurls into and breaks the window of success the UW currently has available for students.

If something needs to be changed about the manner in which the UW handles its budget, Emmert’s salary should be on the table. In 2007, The Daily published an article by Celia Hunko that detailed his new salary. His salary increased by $150,000 and also includes vehicle allowance, club fees, retirement pay and a 1.5-acre estate with a mansion. All and all, it’s about $905,000. Emmert has the second-highest salary among all public universities in the nation. To give him credit, however, in a town-hall style budget meeting in 2009, he agreed that his salary was on the budget-cutting table, but there has been no talk of it since that meeting.

Even our rival school, Washington State, has made changes to the salary of its president. Maybe we do have something to learn from WSU.

Personally, the proposed budget cuts will affect my education. This quarter, I am in two classes taught by graduate students. Honestly, the only reason why this bothers me is because I am paying such high tuition to learn at a university that is known for its professors, and I know students attending community college whose teachers all graduated from PhD programs and used to teach at big universities. Also, an increase in tuition means the money that I now need is coming from other places. I commute from my parents’ house this year because I cannot afford to pay both tuition and housing. Commuting from twenty minutes away is an easy thing to do to save upward of $2,000 a year. Finally, if the quality of my education and the resources that are available continue to diminish, I will consider transferring to another school.

It is apparent the University of Washington administration likes to save the face of its institution, rather than working on the interior issues of its budget-cut plans. It will be important for the university to save the programs that help students graduate, rather than focus on things like research that may not be obtainable without a degree.

Allison Shields

Sophomore, psychology and education

Exactly 10 years ago from Jan. 31, Alaska Airlines flight 261, en route from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, to Seattle, crashed off the coast of Port Hueneme, Calif., instantly killing all 88 passengers and crew members. It is a day that the family and friends of these victims will never be able to forget, myself among them. That fateful evening I lost my aunt, Kristin Mills, a flight attendant who was substituting for another who had called in sick.

The emotions that one goes through in a crisis like this one are many; some of them you can’t even categorize into the ones you learned as a child. Now, 10 years later, after finally being able to come to the memorial for the first time, the feelings that come strongest to me are those of acceptance and forgiveness. This doesn’t necessarily mean that I’ve gotten over it. As someone said today, “You never really get over it, but you learn to live with it.”

Coming down to this memorial, which takes place every year, has been a great experience for me. Other than Kristin, I hadn’t met a single other person that was on that flight. But now, after only a few days of listening to the stories that the other family members have been sharing, I feel like I’ve known many of them. One of the strangest things about death is how it brings so many different people together. Eighty-eight strangers died together that day, 10 years ago, but through their passing, hundreds have come together to form one family. You can’t see this any better than at the actual memorial service where, one by one, a member of each family comes up, places a single rose, and stands by their loved one’s name on the monument that was erected at the beach. At the end of this, all the family members are in one large circle around the monument, and standing there, you know you are among the only others who can ever truly understand what you have gone through.

Life is a one-way street; there’s no going back. But once in a while, you can stop along the way, enjoy the scenery, and meet some people that will make the journey a little more pleasant. For those of us here at the memorial, our journey still has a little ways to go. Our friends and family that died that day have reached the exit we haven’t come to yet. But we know that someday soon, we’ll get there and have the opportunity to see them again, and that keeps us driving along.

Daniel Germain

Senior, classics

Seattle was warmer than Miami this week. Whether you call it global warming or not, change in our climate is happening faster than anyone predicted. The Daily highlighted the Campus Sustainability Fund (CSF), and I had the chance to discuss and observe responses from my peers in the community.

Most fears recognized the impending budget cuts the UW will go under once again. A combination of fewer scholarships, higher tuition rates, and a higher cost of living make even the smallest amount seem a burden. However, let’s think about where this money is going: straight back to us, so students have the opportunity to work together and physically improve the UW. We know that we, and the generations before us, have done nothing but destroy the Earth, and we are finally realizing it. If we make a small sacrifice each quarter, and skip one latte, organizations like the Green Coalition and WashPIRG will be able to draw attention to our school as we make strides in sustainability. Perhaps those politicians that decide where state funds go will admit that the students of the UW are willing to put important issues in their own hands, and award us more money the next time around, resulting in a net gain of resources.

Whether it is for our selfish purpose of standing out to obtain a monetary benefit, or the more consequential issue of our local and global environment, we should support the CSF. We should not be afraid to tackle issues which are large in scope.

Cecile Farmer

Senior, music

As a regular reader of The Daily and a student here at the UW, I am constantly confronted with issues involving budget cuts. This is an issue that directly affects the quality of our education, and over the past year, we have seen how vital funding is to us students. This is why I urge all members of the UW community to renew our commitment to Seattle Public Schools (SPS) and vote yes on Propositions 1 and 2 in the election being held this upcoming Tuesday, Feb. 9. Both propositions renew levies already in place and will result in no new taxes. Both are essential in funding the SPS. Proposition 1 is the capital levy and pays for much-needed projects and basic needs like paint on the walls and seismic upgrades. Proposition 2 is the operations levy and represents 23 percent of the SPS’ annual operating budget. This pays for very necessary things, such as teachers’ salaries. This means that if Prop. 2 does not pass, nearly a quarter of the SPS’ budget would be cut, and we all know, here at the UW, how devastating a one-quarter budget cut can be. We are in a unique position to be able to vote as students and give a voice to all the other students who do not have a voice. I urge you to mail in your ballots by Tuesday and renew our commitment to SPS and thousands of kids by voting “yes” twice.

Vincent Mayo

Junior, anthropology

In response to “Keep violence out for fairer budget” by Rebecca Kuensting, Jan. 28, 2010.

Why militant struggle?

In the Jan. 28 Daily, Rebecca Kuensting attacks the International Socialist Organization (ISO), a UW registered student organization, for proposing “militant struggle” to oppose budget cuts and tuition increases. She feels that militant struggle must mean violence, or at least unproductive “stubborn displays of anger.” The ISO would like to respond and explain our position on responsible militant organizing.

First of all, is anger justified? Let’s look at the facts. On the federal level, the government gave more than $700 billion to the largest banks and backed them up with trillions in loan guarantees. It spends more than $100 billion a year to kill and occupy the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, millions of people lose their homes, jobs and health care. Students face continual and massive tuition increases. Where is the bailout for workers and the poor?

The state of Washington has the most regressive tax structure in the U.S. The poorest 20 percent of the population in Washington pays 17 percent of its income in state taxes, while the richest only pay 3 percent. A modest increase in taxes on the rich, or closing tax loopholes, would end the budget shortfall at once. At the UW level, we have many administrators that make more than $150,000 a year. President Emmert makes nearly $1 million a year — and that doesn’t count more than $300,000 from sitting on corporate boards, or his free mansion. At the same time, the UW lays off janitors and teaching assistants, cuts back on office staff, increases class sizes, cuts course offerings, raises tuition, and closes and cuts-back libraries. The priorities of the system from top to bottom favor the rich over the poor, business over labor, and top-paid administrators over students. While ordinary people suffer, the rich get bailed out and laugh all the way to the bank.

If this situation doesn’t make you angry, where is your compassion or sense of justice? The excuse that there is no money for education or social programs because of the recession does not fly. The money is there — it just goes to the wrong people for the wrong purposes.

How do we actually win the change we want to see? The crux of Rebecca’s argument is at the end: “We need to enter dialogue with Washington decision makers and propose reasonable solutions. …”

This would be true if our goals and interests were the same. The problem is that they are not. The corporate heads and the politicians that represent them pursue the goal of the current economic system, maximization of profit — or, as they often put it, “creating a good business climate.” Their goal is not fundamentally the well-being, jobs, health care or education of the majority. Since the goals are different, what is “reasonable” to them is not reasonable to us. A “reasonable dialogue” will achieve their goals, not ours.

The way to make them grant some of our demands, which do cut into their profit margin, is to wage a struggle that interferes with their profit and power. This is what we mean by “militant” struggle — struggle that interrupts business-as-usual. Militant struggle will often be non-violent. As Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., whom Rebecca cites, put it: “If we realize how indispensable is responsible militant organization to our struggle, we will create it as we managed to create underground railroads, protest groups, self-help societies and the churches. …”

The need for militant struggle (disruptive, confrontational actions: sit-ins, strikes and occupations such as the recent ones in California) is not just theoretical. As the great abolitionist and ex-slave Frederick Douglass put it: “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. Find out just what a people will quietly submit to, and you have found the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.”

The validity of Douglass’ attitude has been shown over and over again in U.S. history. It took a civil war (an extreme form of “militant struggle”) to free the slaves. It took a mass, very disruptive civil-rights movement to win legal equality for black Americans. It took militant sit-down strikes, and even battles with the police and National Guard, for workers to win their right to organize unions, Social Security, welfare, unemployment compensation, the eight-hour work day, and the weekend.

The fundamental structure of power has not changed since these struggles. We still live by the golden rule — those with the gold make the rules. As long as society is divided by class, by wealth and power, it will take militant struggle threatening the interests of the rich to make them give us reforms.

Let’s leave the last word to Howard Zinn, radical historian and activist, and author of A People’s History of the U.S., who, tragically, died on Jan. 27: “Yes dissent and protest are divisive, but in a good way, because they represent accurately the real divisions in society. The divisions exist — the rich, the poor — whether there is dissent or not, but when there is no dissent, there is no change. The dissent has the possibility … of challenging the reality of that division. Changing the balance of power on behalf of the poor and oppressed.”

If you want to fight the budget cuts and tuition increases, join the UW Student Worker Coalition that meets every Thursday at 6 p.m. in the Suzzallo Library Café.

If you want to find out more about the International Socialist Organization, come to our weekly meetings at 7 p.m. on Wednesdays in B-14 Social Work and check out seattleiso.org for details. And on Feb. 10, we are hosting a public forum that will take up the history of building a mass militant movement that is actually capable of winning change: “50 Years Since the Civil Rights Sit-ins: How the Movement Was Built,” with guest-speaker Keeanga–Yamahtta Taylor, doctoral candidate in African American Studies from Northwestern University in Chicago. Join the discussion about this inspiring history and what lessons activists today can learn for our current struggles, Wednesday, Feb. 10, at 7 p.m. in Architecture 147.

Ethan Boyles

International Socialist Organization

Looking over my life, what has my disability done for me? Of course, there are pros and cons. But I consider them to be equally weighted.

I think having a disability is an experience most people won’t have. It opens you up to many opportunities that you would never experience. But then there are times you wish you didn’t have a disability.

I was born with a rare heart defect called congenital heart disease. I was also diagnosed with multiple conditions relating to the heart. I have lived my whole life with this physical disability, and I am pretty used to it. I’m used to getting tired while walking long distances. I’m used to people commenting about the blueish color in my fingernails and lips. I was used to not participating in physical education in grade school, which was a good thing for me at that time.

The cons of having a disability like mine? I get tired very often. Going up a flight of stairs can be very exhausting. I cannot exercise strenuously, because I will get tired very fast and always have to stop what I’m doing to catch my breath. This includes sports like basketball, soccer, football and track. Also, most times in my life, I am in and out of doctors’ offices, hospital rooms from surgery, and at the pharmacy for the medications I’m required to take. I can’t go hiking with my family and relatives. Someone always has to be with me because I can’t keep up with everyone.

For my pros about my disability, I didn’t have to participate in physical education in grade school. I received special disability accommodation at my high school, and now at the UW. At the UW, this includes transportation to and from my classes, living in a single room to accommodate my medical needs, relocating my classrooms to one general spot on campus rather than spread out everywhere, and having an excuse to use the elevator in any building. But the one thing I will never forget was my trip to Hawaii, sponsored by the Make-A-Wish Foundation. I didn’t realize until my doctor mentioned to me that I was eligible for a wish. The Make-A-Wish Foundation has provided many special wishes to children ages 2 to 18 that have life-threatening diseases. I never considered my heart condition as a life-threatening disease until that time, and what I had realized before makes me think twice about how I am living my life today.

Throughout the years living with this condition, I just realized how lucky I am. My disability doesn’t impact my intelligence or my mental capacity. I am very thankful for that, because I always think about the times I survived those AP classes in high school or how I had the motivation to continue further in math class. If my brain was affected by a mental disability, I couldn’t imagine where I would be today. It’s amazing what I have done in my life to work around this disability. But since I really can’t avoid it, it is a part of me, and it makes me who I am today.

Hien Vu

As a volunteer for the Campus Sustainability Fund (CSF), I keep hearing the same argument over and over, claiming students don’t have the money to pay for this. I wanted to address this claim, because tuition hikes have been a hot-button issue among students, and I don’t think the CSF should be lumped into the same category. First off, the CSF would cost students $5 per quarter, at most. Second, the CSF can and will save students money. One of the most exciting project ideas we’ve heard is for an on-campus organic-food co-op. In fact, students at the University of California, Berkeley, have already created something like this, called the Berkeley Student Food Collective, which offers students healthy, local, organic foods at 20-40 percent savings. An organic food co-op here at UW could offer students the same healthy, local food at similar prices — prices which would save students the $5 they spent on the fund after buying just $25-worth of produce. In other words, the proposed organic-food co-op could cancel out the quarterly per-student cost of the CSF in one single shopping trip.

The CSF would not just save students money; it would save the university money as well. Consider this: The university recently installed 100 water-free urinals on campus. According to UW Facilities Services, these 100 urinals will save 40 million gallons of water per year on their own. Those 40 million gallons certainly weren’t free, but considering they were conserved by just 100 new urinals, they represent but a fraction of the savings possible. With the CSF, projects like this and countless others could find ample funding. As more and more cost-saving projects like this spring up all over campus, the university’s expenses will decrease slowly but surely, making tuition hikes less necessary. Thus, the CSF will not only save students money, it will save the university money, thereby ensuring tuition rates remain affordable for future students.

Alan Wright

Senior, Program on the Environment

In response to “Free Speech Friday,” Jan. 29, 2010,

I am writing in regard to Nate Moe’s absurd diatribe against the short-term emergency-loans program provided by Student Fiscal Services (SFS). Mr. Moe attempts to convince the reader that he is a victim of an unregulated credit system created by SFS to exploit needy students. Unfortunately, even a cursory review of the loan terms (available at: f2.washington.edu/fm/sfs/students/short-term) contradict the account he provides.

In contrast to Mr. Moe’s account, here is how the process actually works: “The balance of the loan is due in full the fourth week of the quarter following the quarter in which you borrowed the funds. Students have the option of a one-time due-date extension on the loan if necessary. Exercising this option will extend the due date by one quarter. …” Mr. Moe’s claim that he took out an additional loan to repay the debt on the initial loan (a procedure known as “flipping” or “rolling-over” the loan) is incorrect, as it conflicts with the terms of the loan: “There are no deferment options or alternative repayment plans available for short-term loans. Loans that remain unpaid after the due date will be transferred from the UW system to our billing servicer, Campus Partners, and will be subject to late fees and other action.” Furthermore, SFS has installed controls in the process to encourage debt repayment: “An outstanding past-due short-term loan may prevent you from registering for future classes, making schedule changes, or obtaining records such as transcripts.”

How, then, could Mr. Moe have continued his “self-inflicted Ponzi scheme” with these controls in place? My best guess is that Mr. Moe is not telling the whole story. My suspicion stems from the fact that the hold placed on a student’s account is removed if the debt on the loan is paid off through an alternative source of aid. The most likely explanation for Mr. Moe’s multiple-loans scheme is as follows: Each quarter, his short-term loan debt from the prior quarter was paid-off by aid disbursed through alternative sources. After the debt on the SFS loan was settled each quarter, Mr. Moe applied for another emergency loan through SFS, then repeated the process each quarter. Unfortunately for Mr. Moe, this “self-inflicted Ponzi scheme” would collapse if the alternative sources of aid terminated and, after his loan was transferred to Campus Partners, he would then be required to pay back the money he borrowed.

Mr. Moe then claims that he has been victimized and questions the integrity of SFS’ decision to extend credit to needy students: “I think it’s wrong that it takes a couple mouse clicks on MyUW to have $2,500 instantly deposited into your bank account.” Despite Mr. Moe’s cry for regulation, SFS has controls set in place to help prevent the abuse of short-term credit. First, limited extensions on loans and restrictions on enrollment in courses structure immediate repayment if the student is to continue their education at the UW. SFS makes no illusions regarding the risk involved: “Please consider carefully your ability to repay prior to borrowing short-term loan funds!” What is more, these warnings are replete throughout the online process of acquiring the loan. Second, imposing financial sanctions through fees and credit-score penalties provide incentives to repay the loan, regardless of whether the student will continue their education at the UW.

The simple fact is that Mr. Moe’s scheme does not represent a string of victimizations inflicted on him by SFS. Rather, his account illustrates his willingness to take advantage of a service provided by the UW. Note that, because the student does not pay interest on the loan, emergency loans are not a source of revenue for SFS. To impose controls that would prevent irresponsible people from harming their credit and taking advantage of a generous credit system would negatively impact those who are responsible with their credit and impose greater financial hardship on students with limited credit opportunities.

Jacob Young

Graduate student, sociology

In response to “Out to work” by Peter Sessum, Feb. 1, 2010,

In Peter Sessum’s article “Out to work,” Susan Conarroe confronted a panel advocating “coming out” with your sexual preference. She asked the obvious: “Why come out at work?” Her question related to her experience, where it was not accepted as appropriate at work. The question implied that there was no advantage to “coming out” and that it should not even be done. David Summerlin of the panel answered her question with an argument I am sure he spent no time thinking about: “Why not? Why not come out at work?”

It is time someone answers David’s question very seriously. His response is typically out-of-touch for the LGBTQ community. Over the last couple decades or so, the LGBTQ community has warped itself into a pseudo-religious movement. In other words, in the view of the LGBTQ community, your sexual preference is your most significant characteristic as a human being — if your are gay, that is. It is the thing they identify with above all other characteristics — their ultimate definition of “self.” In their view, sexual preference is more important than what you think about issues, more important than your character, and even more important than your abilities. They push this notion of wearing your sexual preferences on your sleeve as though it is something that everyone else should need to deal with.

Have any of you in the LGBTQ community noticed that no one outside of the LGBTQ community wears their sexuality on their sleeve or makes it anyone’s business, except for perhaps prostitutes, strippers, and other social outcasts? Imagine I am interviewing for a job. Now imagine I am getting to the end of that interview and I stop the interviewer at what I think is an appropriate time and I ask, “I am a man who prefers doggy-style. Is that going to be a problem working here?” This was done in the article, apparently without ever considering if it was inappropriate. Of course, the preference being mentioned in the article was not doggy-style, but homosexuality. But according to the LGBTQ’s political statements, this should not matter one bit. They pretend that being gay is just part of who gay people are and we should not consider it any different than being straight. After all, that assumption is essential to justify their demand to define marriage around their preferences.

So it is no surprise that society says, “No, wait! Defining marriage is about what society as a whole needs. It’s not to be defined by a tiny fringe group that wants to distort what marriage means.” Society sees the behavior of the gay community as being very different than the behavior of the rest of society. To the gay person, this is outrageous. “I am just like you” is their mantra.

And yet, to the rest of society, personal issues are personal and should not be brought to a professional scenario. And the gay person can’t seem to make that distinction. You can see how one might even get the idea that the gay person has a regretfully lower sense of respect for the decency of others. They still don’t seem to want to prove me wrong, do they?

Brian Cox

Junior, mechanical engineering

In response to “Staff editorial: Enough already, protestors. Nobody is listening” by Christian Caple, Feb. 2, 2010,

Christian Caple wrote that “tuition is going to go up whether you like it or not.” Presenting tuition hikes or increased pay for Mark Emmert as inevitable is an unexamined position that needs to be persistently challenged.

Although Caple dismissed our actions as insignificant, we (students, student workers including teaching assistants, custodians, and other members of the University community) are standing up for our rights. We have a right to participate in decisions that affect our lives. We should have a say in how budget resources are allocated. Considering that top-level administrators make exorbitant amounts, while students and workers experience increased hardships, there must be a more equitable way to divide the pie. Caple wrote that we will have to just “deal with” paying more for our degrees. Should we simply accept paying more for less?

The UW Student/Worker Coalition demanded that the Board of Regents move their meeting not because the UW Tower is “too far of a walk,” but because the meeting is required to be open to the public, yet the room size and meeting time limit who can attend, including those most affected by the board’s conversations and decisions.

As long as our working and learning conditions worsen, and as long as we are paying more for a lower-quality education, we will keep marching. We should all be marching. This is our university, too, and we have the right to try to make it a better place for everyone.

Tiffany Grobelski

Graduate student, geography

I am shocked that you wrote an editorial with such a defeatist tone. While I agree with your perspective on picketers’ approach to getting attention, this point is undermined by your poor assessment of the impact of students in preserving education and working with the administration.

Yes, the issues we face range deep in complexity, and it is unrealistic to believe that tuition won’t need to go up, and the quality of our education will be tested, but to opt for complacency and selective retention at times when students must stand up and test the long-held assumptions, like those you claim, is dangerous.

Instead, you should be motivating students to use their knowledge, their network and their resources to advocate for the preservation of higher education, all while using tested ideas and facts. We should be proactive in removing antagonism and creating purposeful conversation with all members of the UW community. We should rely on the power of human ingenuity to find ways to maintain the quality of our education, hold administrators accountable, and create a consistent student presence in Olympia. As students, it is our duty to take ownership of our education. In my opinion, this should not be done through meaningless interruptions and boneless arguments. Rather, we must listen, cooperate, but most importantly, hold the firm belief that we can make a difference.

In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, “The worst thing you can do is nothing.”

Camilo Andrés Moreno-Salamanca

Junior, marketing and entrepreneurship

In response to “Fiscal responsibility requires cutting spending, not raising taxes“ by Russ Wung, Feb. 3, 2010,

Mr. Wung’s opinion piece targeting the upcoming federal budget must surely be one of the English language’s finest satires since Jonathan Swift put pen to paper. His characterization of government as a “parasite” is most hilarious, for to any student at the University of Washington, the value of government is so clear that only the most talented satirist would say something so foolish. Without state support, what would happen to tuition at the UW? Without taxes, who would fund research grants at the UW? How would students get to campus without the roads our taxes build?

Government is a parasite?!

Not since Swift’s “Modest Proposal” has so absurd a statement been made in any land in which words are used. Surely, any student with enough drive, intelligence and determination to win admittance to the UW would only make such a statement if he were a champion satirist; for the alternative, that this statement was earnestly and sincerely made, suggests a lack of critical thinking and analytical skills.

Sean Kelly

Cell and molecular biology