The Sept. 1 editorial in The Northern Star concerning student control of the Holmes Student Center made clear the editorial board’s misjudgement of two important campus issues. The first issue regards a need for policy change, while the second brings to light a widely held conceptual misunderstanding. Specifically, the misjudgements stated by the Star are:

. Students should not control the operations of the Holmes Student Center (policy misjudgement).

2. Students “are not qualified” and do not “have the expertise” to make policies for the student center (conceptual misjudgement).

Regarding the first point, the Star argued that students merely pay a “user fee” to support the student center and, therefore, should not have input into the operations of the student center. Unfortunately, the $96 paid by individual students each year is not a user fee, but a student fee charged only to students and no other user. Faculty, administration and the state are forced to provide a combined total of $0 to the student center and are allowed the same general access to the student center. In fact, a student will pay close to $400 during a four-year period to support the student center and might never step through its doors, while non-students might use the building many times and not provide one cent of financial support. Clearly, a student’s $96 per year is not a user fee.

Furthermore, it is the students who are forced to provide the financial support for the student center whenever the administration and Board of Regents decide that money is needed or has mismanaged it’s operations as to cause additional expenditures.

Who was responsible for the shoddy building practices which caused the bricks on the 16-story tower of the student center to fall off, resulting in the attractive barricade surrounding the student center? The administration.

Who will provide the $2 million necessary to rebuild the walls of the student center? The students.

Who has set a rental rate for space in the student center well below actual costs for that space? The administration.

Who subsidizes administrative offices and banquet rooms in the student center? Once again, the students.

Ultimately, it is the students who, through fees, provide the only guaranteed financial support to operations over which they have no control whatsoever. It seems logical that students would then expect some control over those decisions which directly affect them and which they pay for.

Policies in a university heirarchy are of course arguable and in the immediate control of those at the top of the heirarchy. Conceptual abilities such as a student’s expertise or qualifications, however, cannot be controlled. Furthermore, the Star’s assertion that students are not capable of creating policy for the STUDENT center, for, which they are paying, teeters on the brink of support for a totalitarian heirarchy at NIU.

Examples set by students at the University of Colorado—Boulder, University of California—Berkley and a number of other institutions show that students are in fact capable of creating policy for multi-million dollar student and university centers and other university services.

Additionally, students at NIU have shown significant capabilities as they created and continue to dictate policy for the Huskie Bus Line. Keep in mind that the Huskie Bus Line is second only to the C.T.A. in passenger rides in the state.

Further examples are evident in the Student Association Recycling Station, which reduced need for landfill space in DeKalb County by 9640.8 cubic feet during an 18-month period.

And it was students who showed true understanding of the university when they argued against the contract for the Pow Wow food service with Marriot. (Ultimately, Marriot walked out of a five-year contract with four years left).

A recent and “complex” situation arose when the plumbing above an office in the student center started to leak. The administration’s response was to replace the ceiling tile and carpeting at a cost of $2,000 only to have the same leak cause similar damage one week later. The average student would have looked at the plumbing, fixed the small, but obvious, hole and then replace the expensive stuff. (This bungle will cost the administration $0 while students, as usual, will pick up the bill.)

In short, students have proven themselves to be highly competent when it comes to complex operations and are indeed in a position where they should expect some control over their dollars.

Finally, a key aspect of the university’s mission is to prepare students for the complex society in which they are living. With this in mind, as long as elements of the university community maintain that students are not capable of making important decisions which directly affect them, NIU will fail miserably in its attempt to fulfill this mission.

Jim Fischer

President 1986-1988

NIU Student Association