Category: Opinion

By Anonymous
Transcript Contributor

Counseling wasn’t something I ever thought I would ever need.

Blessed with a healthy mind and a privileged life, I had no need to see a psychologist or psychiatrist, or even visit my school guidance counselor. I was content with my life and everyone and everything in it. My brother had an anxiety disorder for as long as I could remember, but he and my parents managed it well.
When I was 16, my parents told my brothers and me my dad was struggling with depression, but he was dealing with it in a healthy way and making a lot of progress. Mental health didn’t seem like a threat, but then it was. In a few short months my dad unraveled. He lost his battle with depression just before my seventeenth birthday.

When it happened, I felt like my life was in pieces. But seeing a counselor every week helped me put the pieces of my life together again. It was the reason I was able to sort through my thoughts and process what had happened.

It gave me the determination to get out of bed and go to school. It brought my family back together again, and we are now stronger than ever. I came to Ohio Wesleyan because this was the only college I felt could truly support me.

When I came in for my interview as a high school senior, I was comforted and supported by a woman who was supposed to be questioning me, not telling me that I would be happy here, at home here.

I was told this is a community filled with love and unity, and I could tell it was. My visit to OWU reassured me that this is a school that nurtures and helps its students grow.

I’ve been here for two years now, and although I am growing, I’m also still grieving. I still am not perfect, I still need help, and I know I’m not alone.

When I first tried to make an appointment with counseling services, I was frustrated because they told me they couldn’t take me for two months. I decided I couldn’t wait and would go home to see my therapist when necessary.

But not everyone is as lucky. Not everyone can leave to see their doctor whenever they want, and not everyone has the money to afford professional help. When students can’t get an appointment right away, many of them find themselves not getting it. And that has to stop.

Everyone should be encouraged to take care of their mental health, and have the opportunity to receive individual attention.

The death of a loved one, trouble at home, sexual assault, addiction, a mental disorder or anything that overwhelms and paralyzes a student from being their best self is a problem. We need to start recognizing that the brain is an organ and it can fail us. When our body is sick, we have the resources on hand to help it heal. Why don’t we have the same for our mental health?

The counselors here are simply remarkable, which is why it is such a shame that they do not have the staff to cater to the demands of our student body. A mental health problem doesn’t wait for a time of your convenience, so a waitlist for counseling shouldn’t be happening either. If students are hurting, they should be encouraged to reach out, and they should be welcomed with open arms.

The initiative for more funding for Counseling Services needs to be supported. You might not realize the necessity of counseling, but do you really want to wait until you do? Don’t you deserve to have this incredible resource available to you when you need it?

If you haven’t already, sign the petition sponsored by the House of Peace and Justice to prioritize Counseling Services. Contact your WCSA representative, email an administrator, or both. We need to demand that an increase in funding for Counseling Services becomes a priority.

Ours is a school that takes pride in its strong, loving sense of community, and we need to actively work to keep it that way. Let’s keep OWU students happy and healthy. Let’s get everyone access to Counseling Services.

By Elizabeth Childers
Managing Editor

“As the defendants sobbed and their attorneys fought back tears, an Ohio judge convicted two high school football stars of raping a 16-year-old girl and sentenced them to juvenile prison Sunday, but the case that cast an ugly light over a small town and its athletes is not over,” begins an LA Times article published March 17.

CNN is currently taking some heat over discussing the same case without mentioning the victim and the impact on her life, instead focusing on the defendants whose lives have been “ruined” because of their conviction.

It’s amazing how some towns get put on the map. As a native Ohioan, I had never heard of Steubenville until this past winter, when the terrifying rape of a sixteen year old girl was brought to light by social networking and the group Anonymous, spurring investigation and trial.

The trial ended this month with two young men being declared “delinquent,” the equivalent to guilty in juvenile court. And the media’s stance on this event was, to me, mildly surprising.

My first surprise was the fact they were tried in a juvenile court for an adult rated crime. The boys, ages 16 and 17, were eligible to stand trial as adults. The Ohio State Bar Association states a “child” may be charged as an adult when committing a serious felony and is over the age of 14; and in some cases, like when multiple offenses have been committed or a gun has been used, it is required by law to transfer them out of the juvenile system. These regulations are complicated, and the law did not require them to be transferred, but the court could have made it happen.

By not transferring them, the boys were given significantly lighter sentences, though the damage done to their reputations would be permanent—at least until two years after the crime when they can ask the court to seal their records, because of the case’s juvenile status.

My second surprise was that both the media and the court had sympathy for these rapists. Not only did they sexually assault this girl—it was documented on social media, like the YouTube video of teenagers joking and laughing about the victim and talking about the rape.

The facts of the case were pretty accurately described by tweets, Facebook posts and photos (a new precedent for use of social media as evidence). The New York Times did an interesting piece about a particular blogger who had been involved in bringing attention to the case—Alexandria Goddard.

“Her expertise creating social media profiles of teenagers whose parents want to know what their children are doing online gave her a distinctive window on the situation,” the Times wrote. “She applied her social media sleuthing skills to the online conversation about the victim and the events leading up to and around the Aug. 11 party. ‘Within about two hours, I had a pretty decent outline of what was going on that night,’ Goddard said, after finding the names of the high school football team members on a school Web site and then discovering their public Twitter streams.

Goddard, after her research, said she was sickened by what was done, and the fact it was reported in real time and none of these people deigned to stop what was happening.

I feel the same. There was more than one crime being committing here, and it’s hard to say which is worse: the rape, or the apathy towards it.

The lawyer of 16-year-old Ma’lik Richmond, the younger of the two boys convicted in this case, says there will be an appeal requesting he not join the sexual offender’s list for the rest of his life because, and I quote, “At 16, the brain is not fully developed.”

That may be true. It’s why you have to be 25 to rent a car in most states.

But to say it excuses sexual assault sounds a lot like the “boys will be boys” argument that often discredits the severity of their actions.

Then for two other teenage girls to threaten the victim on such a public place as Twitter and Facebook is almost absurd. Are we still a culture who actively punishes the victims of crimes by continually victimizing them? The unfortunate answer to that question is obvious.

The girl was drunk, and didn’t remember the events after the fact—hence why social media and what was pieced together by Goddard was crucial to the conviction. And while she had a personal responsibility to keep herself safe, that did not entitle these boys to violate her once she was unable to make her own decisions. The golden rule to partying is to only do it with people you trust. Obviously, the victim trusted the wrong people. Was it her fault? No.

Three weeks ago, as my house project for the House of Peace and Justice, junior Women’s House resident Gus Wood and I put on the V-Men Workshop, a component of the V-Day movement designed to start a conversation in a male space about the role men play in the problem of violence against women and girls.

The workshop asked a lot of tough, insightful questions about masculinity, manhood, gender, sex and relationships to women. There was a wonderful amount of productive discussion about how we can be active male allies to the movement for ending violence against women and girls.

Despite the quantity of good conversation and how much everyone got out of it, turnout was disheartening.
All my male housemates were required to be there —they accounted for seven of the attendants. Only eight others showed up.

On a campus of roughly 835 men, 15 cared enough to sacrifice even an hour of their time on a Saturday afternoon to talk about themselves, the women in their lives and what they can do to end the abhorrent violence that affects women worldwide on a daily basis.

Granted, it was a Saturday afternoon, and a busy one at that—Delta Gamma’s Anchor Splash, the first round of the Division III NCAA basketball tournament and OWU’s Got Talent all happened that day.

But 820 men on this campus couldn’t bother to dedicate a second of their busy day to unpack the culture that shapes their hearts, minds and actions as men, and how that same culture affects women in much less favorable ways.

Rape, sexual assault and other insidious forms of violence against women and girls are problems men must have a hand in solving. Men are the perpetrators of 95 percent of sexual crimes. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), one in six women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, overwhelmingly at the hands of a man. RAINN statistics also show that someone is sexually assaulted in the United States every two minutes. It is impossible to see these statistics and deny that men don’t have a role to play in dismantling this system of violence.

On top of the sheer number of sexual crimes committed in this country, we live in a culture that condones rape and other sexual violence, both through its silence and overt misogynist bias. RAINN says 54 percent of rapes go unreported—not because rape isn’t a big deal, but because survivors are so often stigmatized, attacked and shamed for what happens to them.

Only in a rape culture is a woman interrogated with a stock list of questions to determine whether a rape was her fault: what was she wearing? How drunk was she? Who was she with? Did she lead him on? This convention of victim blaming upholds not only our society’s system of misogyny, but also its system of racism, heterosexism and cissexism. If someone doesn’t have white, male, heterosexual cisgender privilege, they are always at fault. Think Trayvon Martin and CeCe McDonald. Think Steubenville.

Steubenville was not the young woman’s fault. The perpetrators’ lives are not being ruined. What happened and continues to unfold in Steubenville is the result of a destructive, harmful, violent cultural system that’s reinforced by individual action.

This culture of shaming the victim—this rape culture—made it okay for the case to be ignored for months, for it to be laughed at, for its media coverage to be grossly unfair.

But Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond participated in rape culture by doing what they did. They violated the unconscious young woman and dragged her from house to house. They were unrepentant for their actions. They plan to appeal the conviction and continue to claim they did no wrong.

Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond are men. They are who rape culture privileges. But while men support and benefit from rape culture, they have the power to dismantle it.

At OWU, the responsibility falls on the 820 men I did not see on March 2 to be aware of the power they have. It is our responsibility as men to create a safer world for the women in our lives. If we don’t, the situation will only grow more dire.

We cannot do this through silence. We must do it through our words and actions—so speak up.

Noah Manskar
Editor-in-Chief

By Spenser Hickey
Assistant Copy Editor

On Feb. 26, a celebrity arrived at Ohio State University – he went out to eat, got his photo taken with an Olympian and soon had many students asking to meet him.

What people either didn’t care about or perhaps even liked – but certainly knew, given the attention – was that this “celebrity” was wanted for alleged crimes including robbery (at the University of Connecticut); carjacking, robbery, and assault and battery (in Lee, Massachusetts); and aggravated assault and attempted sexual assault (in Morgantown, West Virginia).
‘
This fugitive-turned-celebrity is Michael Moses Tarpeh, also known on Twitter as “Michael Boadi” and “Bigggggg Mike.”

Based on his tweets, he is still at large in Columbus. Even as he is on the run from U.S. Marshals, Tarpeh has remained active on Twitter; his tweets vary from shout-outs to fans, retweeting comments sent at him, taunting the police, and suggestions as to where he’s been and what he’s done.

“Who (sic) Credit cards am I stealing tonight?? #yolo,” he tweeted on Feb. 28, later asking “where’s the best party at? I’ll be there.”

His question got several responses, including one saying “Morrill Tower! We got all the drugs.”

After seeing this, the ridiculousness of the situation became real for me when I remembered my brother lives in Morrill Tower, and that someone had just invited a fugitive, wanted for several violent crimes, to come to his dorm.

Tarpeh, it seems, has become a Robin Hood of the OSU community – a thief, running around stealing at will, while many root him on. In this case, his supporters also seem to be those he robs – at least some wouldn’t care if he did.

One account specifically asked Tarpeh to come rob him, just so he’d be able to say he met him.

Only a very few, it seems, care that Tarpeh is a wanted fugitive; all most want to do is be able to say they’ve met the man, the legend, the “Bigggggg Mike.”

Not too long ago, the eyes of the news media were focused on California, as another fugitive charged with violent crimes eluded the law. Even the police were cautious during Christopher Dorner’s rampage – and rightly so. Why, then, is the situation taken so lightly?

Is it his nickname, with exactly 6 G’s? His use of social media, treating the whole thing as a joke? His seemingly effortless manner of eluding capture?

Tarpeh tweeted that a police officer stopped him and asked for ID,which he provided, saying he was wanted in four states.

The officer purportedly let him go thinking he was joking.

What about the situation leads college students to follow him on Twitter and try to contact him, even as federal, local and campus police urge them not to?

From Jesse James to John Dillinger, we as a society have had an admiration for the outlaw who takes on “the man” and gets away with it, for a while at least – they do the things many would like to but are too afraid to act on.

Has Michael Tarpeh become the next version of that, just combined with “The Hangover”-style hijinks?

Before he appeared at OSU, Tarpeh was spotted at the University of Connecticut, where he is believed to have stolen credit cards from sleeping students at an off-campus apartment.

Were it not for the police search, I probably would’ve believed that Tarpeh didn’t exist, and that all the incidents attributed to him were exaggerated tales of things multiple people did, that we were being duped.

But the police – in Columbus and Delaware, as well as Virginia, Massachusetts and Connecticut – think he’s real. It was the Public Safety email, warning us he may come here, that first led me to read about the situation.

I doubt he’ll be in Delaware anytime soon, as Columbus’ bars, stores and the Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic seem to have him occupied – not to mention OSU, where many look at him as a folk hero, a “true Buckeye,” as one student referred to him in a tweet saying he saw Tarpeh swimming naked with several women in Mirror Lake.
Tarpeh has said he’s not going anywhere, and it seems a lot of students are happy to keep him around, even as he tweets that he stole a credit card, or headphones, or car from them.

He also tweeted “Innocent till Proven Guilty! #BallSoHard” on Feb. 27, yet doesn’t seem to realize – or care – that online activity can be used as evidence.
If Tarpeh’s still in Columbus, I don’t know what his goal is, other than to build up as much fame and notoriety as he can before he’s arrested. If he’s just claiming to be in Columbus while racing for the border, though, it’s a pretty smart diversion.

His described actions are the epitome of “YOLO,” which he’s fond of tweeting, but neither Tarpeh nor his followers seem to realize that you can still go to jail for breaking the law.

A representative of the Marshals’ Service said they’d see the search through to the end, though, so I imagine he’ll find out soon enough.

In the past few days it’s become harder and harder to remain unconscious of the injustice happening at Oberlin College.

Racism, heterosexism, transphobia and many other systems of oppression have recently reared their ugly heads at Oberlin. White supremacist propaganda, fliers and graffiti have surfaced over the last few weeks on top of threats of physical violence and aggressive actions towards marginalized communities. On Monday, someone donned a Klu Klux Klan robe and roamed Oberlin’s campus, causing the administration to cancel classes and encourage students to attend a number of multicultural solidarity events.

Cancelling classes, though, has been neither a resolution nor a solution by any means. In fact, according to Ambre Dromgoole, a sophomore at Oberlin, it was students who advocated for that action—the administration was resistant and remains resistant to efforts against the oppressive violence. Oberlin senior Alex Howard said students were ready to blockade academic buildings when administrators made the final decision. Dromgoole said students and faculty, most of them people of color, organized all the events that replaced classes; the administration played no part in the programming.

The vandalism has made national news, but Dromgoole said media coverage has entirely ignored the physical violence that has occurred. According to a Facebook post by Devan Bass, one woman was chased into her dorm room by bigots in a van; another emerged from her dorm to find “KKK” carved into her bicycle. Many others continue to be chased, stalked and intimidated, particularly around Oberlin’s Afrikan Heritage House.

Reading the blog’s account of how white, male, heterosexual, cisgender Christian privilege has manifested itself at Oberlin and how students are responding both frightens and encourages me. The former is a stark reminder of how these systems of oppression are so real for so many people, how they threaten their victims’ physical, mental and emotional well-being, and how people in power are so often ignorant of and apathetic to this violence. The latter speaks to how brave and powerful the student voice can be, despite how pervasive the violence has been.

Ohio Wesleyan is much akin to Oberlin—we’re both liberal arts institutions in small Ohio towns, we’re both members of the famous Ohio Five and we both have insular and active bubbles of progressivism on our campuses. It is our responsibility to raise our collective student voice and speak out in solidarity with Oberlin against the injustice our friends face there.

Oberlin Microaggressions (obiemicroaggressions.tumblr.com) has done an impeccable job of documenting these disgusting events. Read to stay aware and updated. Sign the solidarity banner outside the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs in rooms 205 of the Hamilton-Williams Campus Center; it will be sent to Oberlin’s Dean of Students. Let Oberlin students know OWU stands with them on every possible avenue.

Remember this is not a problem unique to Oberlin. These kinds of incidents happen every day on college campuses—and outside them—across the country. They have happened here at OWU and in Delaware. Racism, sexism and other disgusting, insidious forms of oppression are ingrained in all our institutions, thoughts and interactions. It is our responsibility to remain aware of them on our campus community and in ourselves.

It is abhorrent that Sisters United had to keep its incredibly powerful Black History Month demonstration two weeks ago a secret so people couldn’t avoid it, instead of it being openly encouraged and well-attended. It is abhorrent that Black Men of the Future’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day programs were not given the respect they deserved. It is abhorrent that a project last semester aiming to raise awareness about the harm of costumes depicting Native people was met with more vocal public backlash than public support.

These problems won’t go away by ignoring them. If anything is to be learned from the events that have unfolded at Oberlin in the past weeks, it is that we must pay attention to how privilege and oppression manifest themselves at OWU and elsewhere. It is our responsibility to work to end them in order to create a truly safe and inclusive environment for everyone.

Noah Manskar
Editor-in-Chief

By Thomas Wolber
Assistant Professor of MFL

Sequestration is something that happens elsewhere, in a far-away place called Washington where they speak their own lingo. Nobody even seems to know what the term means, except that it has something to do with the budget. It’s all very abstract and definitely not something you need to worry about, right? Wrong!

Sequestration is now official, and it will, directly or indirectly, affect each one of us. When $85 billion are being cut from the federal budget this fiscal year (and $1.2 trillion over the next ten years), there is no escape. You can run, but you can’t hide. These cuts will hit home, like it or not.

To begin with, thousands of folks working in the defense industry will be furloughed (it could be a member of your family). A total of 750,000 to 800,000 people will have to take unpaid leaves in 2013, creating renewed hardship and misery everywhere. While some critical programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are exempt from the budget cuts, many smaller discretionary programs are not.

The following areas, and many more, will be decimated: homeland security, disaster relief, public health, food safety, unemployment benefits, job training, infrastructure improvements, housing subsidies, the federal nutrition program (WIC), K-12 education, environmental protection and the national parks.

In many instances, it is the neediest who will suffer most – the children, students, elderly, women, unemployed, sick, and homeless.

Congress members do not seem to have a clue about the human side of sequestration. Their paychecks are safe, and the majority of Congressmen are millionaires anyway.

Let’s have a closer look at what the sequestration process means for higher education. If you happen to be a needy student dependent on federal aid and work-study money, then you will also be affected. $49 million will be deleted from the federal work-study program, eliminating some 33,000 students from participation.

College-preparation programs such as TRIO and Gear Up are also taking a hit: 71,000 fewer supplemental grants will be awarded next year. The arbitrary, indiscriminate across-the-board reductions that went into effect March 1 will hit those students the most whose families cannot make up the loss. As a result, fewer students may be able to stay in college or to go to college in the first place.

Because of the uncertainty, many institutions of higher learning are delaying hiring decisions. Some have begun to reduce the number of graduate students, postdoctoral students, and researchers because of the pending cuts in federal research money.

Ohio State University alone could lose up to $133 million this year. In the long run, these austerity measures will lead to fewer scientific breakthroughs and fewer marketable ideas. Students in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) fields will choose other careers, putting the U.S. at an international disadvantage for decades to come.

“The Chronicle of Higher Education” came to this sobering conclusion: “Thousands of researchers will lose their jobs, thousands of students will lose their financial aid, and thousands of unemployed workers will be turned away from college work-force programs.”

Some conservatives say the cuts are “modest” and that “doomsday” warnings are premature. It is certainly true that not all cuts will be felt right away as they are being phased in gradually. For example, by law federal employees must be given a thirty-days notice before unpaid furloughs can commence.

But eventually, the pain will be felt deeply not only by those directly involved but also by those who will be affected by the ripple effect of the reductions. Consumers will delay car and house purchases, go to restaurants and on trips less often, etc. The cuts will also slow down development on federal lands and waters and result in lack of income and taxes.

The precise impact is unknown because this is uncharted territory, but reputable analysts agree that the fragile national economy will experience a decline and slip into another recession if the cuts are implemented as planned – all because of the gridlock in Washington.

The current fight over the budget also creates the perception that Congress is dysfunctional and that America is in decline. International investors, unless they are vultures, will be reluctant to do business here. No wonder cockroaches enjoy a better reputation at the moment than Congress members with their reckless, irresponsible brinkmanship.
As a teacher, I routinely write letters of recommendations for students applying for study abroad, graduate school or employment. If Congress were a student of mine, my grade would probably be an “F.” The American people deserve better.

By Heather Kuch
Sports Editor

Out of eligibility—those three words seem like the end of the world for any college athlete with a passion for their sport. You’ve exhausted all four years of eligibility you have been given, and your time competing at the varsity level has come to an end.

This is the situation I was in as I rounded out my volleyball career at Ohio Wesleyan. I couldn’t imagine being done with competitive volleyball after devoting 15 years of my life to the sport. So my fellow seniors and I had planned to form a team to compete in the spring intramural volleyball competitions. It seemed like the best way for us to continue to play the sport we loved at a competitive level, which is why you can imagine my shock when I was told that as varsity athletes we were “ineligible to play intramural volleyball.”

Ineligible to play intramural volleyball—it’s a funny thing to hear when you have been told that club sports are open to anyone of any experience level. After hearing this I began to dig into the Ohio Wesleyan bylaws, which regulate intramural sports and, sure enough, there it was: “no varsity volleyball players are eligible to participate.” When I asked if this included seniors who are now off of the roster, I was told that “if you were on the roster for the first match of the season, you are ineligible to play.”

The logic behind these words? I can only assume that it is meant to stop any team from having an unfair advantage by stacking its roster with varsity athletes. I suppose that would make sense if there weren’t so many exceptions to the rule.

I know of five former varsity volleyball players who quit the team after their freshman or sophomore seasons that have played on intramural teams. I can also name several female intramural participants who had offers to play at the collegiate level but decided not to pursue those offers. Finally, I know of many male members of intramural teams who had significant volleyball experience before they came to college, and who would play at the varsity level if it were offered.

It’s hard for me to see how three varsity athletes would create an unfair advantage with such talent distributed throughout all of the teams. It is exactly the same in the other intramural sports as well. I played softball all four years of high school, and when I attended Heidelberg University my freshman year, I was on the varsity softball team. However, I am still allowed to participate on the intramural softball team because I am no longer a varsity softball player, even though I may be at that level of competition. It just doesn’t make sense.

I have even talked to some of my friends who played varsity volleyball at other universities and then moved on to intramural volleyball once their season ended. Some of these people even played at the Division I level and they were surprised to find out that Ohio Wesleyan does not allow its varsity athletes to participate in their sport in intramurals. Similarly, when I attended Heidelberg, I was told that I could play for the intramural team every spring, even while I was still on the roster.

The intramural bylaws at Ohio Wesleyan are not the standard, and in my opinion, they do not make sense. I understand not allowing varsity athletes to participate in any intramural when they are in season because it would be an injury risk and would overexert them.

The only reason for banning the varsity athletes from their sports is to prevent this “unfair advantage,” which is negated by the fact there are many non-varsity athletes who are at the same level of competition as those on the varsity rosters.

My suggestion is a compromise. If there is truly a problem of varsity athletes stacking a team, then put a limit on how many varsity players can play for each team, but don’t stop us from participating in what could be our last chance to competitively play the sport we love.

By Elizabeth Childers
Managing Editor

Over the past two weeks, there has been a lot of talk about parking among the editorial staff and during that time, we published two editorials pointing out the very obvious problem about parking on this campus. I’m happy to say, Public Safety has come up with a plan to change parking.

The issue behind parking is overcrowding, caused by everyone being allowed to bring their car to campus, a larger freshmen population and minimal off-campus housing.
There are too many students for the size of our parking lots, and not all lots are uniform on how they designate B parking from C. Hence, a lot of tickets and boots for students who may or may not be aware of parking are only parking briefly, and some, like me, brazenly park without a pass.

Public Safety is aware of the situation, and is changing the parking to a new system, based on how students plan to use their car.

For a small fee significantly less than the $50 currently needed for the cheapest pass, students would be able to purchase a remote parking permit, meaning they could park their cars in farther areas on campus, like Roy Rike Field, Williams Drive and Selby. These permits are for students who don’t really use their cars for anything but going home or traveling on weekends. Residential lot parking permits, for those students who need more constant access to their cars, will be a significantly higher cost of over $100. These permits would be honored in all residential parking lots.

While this is a change, whether or not it is a good one is debatable. The permits, especially the residential lot permits, are still extremely expensive, an expense that shouldn’t exist.

Students pay enough in tuition, room and board, and it’s only costing more next year. Let the students park free. There should be an order system of registering cars and physically receiving permits, but to charge so much money for them, on top of the cost going to books and the university already, is ridiculous.

Yes, having a car on campus is a privilege for many. But for some it’s a necessity. For students who work off campus, or students with medical needs or students who need their cars for on campus work, need their cars. To make them pay for something that is not optional isn’t appropriate.

The change in parking is no doubt a movement in the right direction. It’s an acknowledgement of the problem. However, to completely fix the problem with parking, there needs to be some bigger changes. Parking lots need to be renovated Currently, lots like Smith, especially near UDF, are cramped, and honestly, half the time I’m worried I’m going to take out someone’s rear end, not to mention the amount of people who don’t get that it’s a one-way lot. Most of the parking lots on campus could do with a new coat of paint to mark spaces. And the lot accompanying Stuy is extremely small for the amount of students who reside not only in that building, but in the SLUs surrounding it.
Parking permits should be a cheap investment for students, not another hidden fee at a school which continually raises tuition.

If you read the caption and note above, sophomore Ellin Youse mentions the work Public Safety does for students, which is no small number. And I agree with the fact they don’t get the recognition they deserve.

The past editorials on this issue weren’t about rants about how unfair life is. These pieces called attention to an issue, by two separate people with separate grievances and different things to say. While Public Safety is working towards a better system of parking, a change is needed on a larger scale: parking needs to be seen maybe not as a necessity, but definitely not as a way for the university to make money in any way.