By Staff

Next week students will be asked to vote on 12 different referenda that have the potential to change where students are permitted to smoke, how late they’ll be able to order a cheeseburger and a slew of other activities on campus. In light of the upcoming elections, which will be held via Blackboard on May 2 and May 3, The Chronicle’s editorial board has dissected and debated these issues, and has come to the decision to endorse the following.

Being a group that has dedicated countless hours to the craft of journalism, we vehemently support freedom of the press. However, we find the referendum calling for the phrase “not including news publications” to be added to SGA’s current rule stating that “The primary purpose of any club may not conflict directly with any existing club under SGA” to be troubling. In the abstract sense, a proposal to encourage more press freedoms on campus sounds like a worthwhile idea, but when SGA is already under-funding its sole existing student newspaper, this proposal poses a threat to the current state of Hofstra’s student media. The senator who authored the original legislation to amend this rule said that no one has yet expressed interest in starting a second newspaper; therefore, this referendum does not even address a need. Should it pass though and a group of students answer what is obviously a call by this one senator to challenge The Chronicle, the creation of another news publication – one that would require an office and thousands of dollars to purchase equipment and cover printing costs, since it would be extremely difficult to raise a significant amount of money through advertising as a start-up – would have a ripple effect that would hurt the financial stability of all clubs on campus. Perhaps, in the future SGA will have discovered a way to supplement the amount of money available to fund clubs, but until this problem is resolved, it should concentrate on the needs of its existing organizations and not craft legislation that could undermine the work and threaten the survival of these groups. For these reasons, we overwhelming oppose this referendum.

The referendum that has generated the greatest controversy within SGA, and between SGA members and some club leaders, regards changing the current SGA rule that requires all its candidates for president and vice president to maintain a minimum cumulative G.P.A. of 2.5 in order to serve in office. Like the previous referenda, this one also originated as a piece of legislation proposed before the senate, which ultimately failed. This legislation, and the referendum that it has spawned, stemmed from the removal of current SGA President Peter DiSilvio from the election race, after it was discovered that he his G.P.A. was below the required 2.5. Like many clubs on campus, The Chronicle owes much of its success this year to DiSilvio. Outshining his predecessors, DiSilvio has established a repertoire with club leaders that has been lacking in the past. He has not only listened to the concerns of students and effectively advocated them to his fellow SGA members and the administration. Not to mention, the numerous club events he has attended over the past year, which speak volumes about his dedicated and support to students – a commitment that ultimately hurt his G.P.A. and made him unqualified to continue to serve the student body in the future. All this withstanding, The Chronicle supports the senators who voted against the proposal to lower the G.P.A. requirement. For starters, amending elections rules for the sake of one candidate would be unfair and unprofessional. Many students, including athletes, members of fraternities and sororities, and DiSilvio’s fellow SGA members, all have G.P.A. standards that they must meet, and compared to the academic requirements that students on scholarship must adhere to, a cumulative G.P.A. of 2.5 is not an unreasonable prerequisite. The president of SGA should be a role model for students in both their extracurricular involvement and their contributions in the classroom. Any student who desires to serve as a leader must rise to the standards that have been established; the bar should not be lowered to accommodate anyone, including our beloved Pete DiSilvio.

Other referenda that have been placed on the ballot include extending the hours of operation for the bookstore and the Student Center Café, which anyone who has found themselves in need of supplies or a late meal that isn’t pizza or ice cream after 9 p.m. will and should support. Another proposal calls into question the current function of the Rathskellar – the stopping ground for the University’s frats and sororities to meet and eat every day. If you’re not in a Greek organization, most likely it’s because you don’t want to be, so most students probably do not feel left out of the Rat, which technically is open to all students, though any one who dared to venture into the underground eatery should be prepared not to find an empty table and to encounter some strange looks. If the Greeks are happy with their home in the Rat, let them be.

The following referenda are no-brainers. For example: “Do you think Hofstra student groups should have to pay for the use of Hofstra facilities, such as intramural fields?” Even if you are not a member of a club sport, any rule that asks students to pay even more money to use facilities that their tuition dollars are already funding is absurd. When clubs are asked to pay these costs, they are wasting money that all students contribute (through the Student Activity fee) and could be better used to serve the campus community. Creating a student-to-student textbook buyback program? Unless you enjoy paying the inflated prices for new ones or take pleasure in waiting with our fingers crossed for some stranger in another state to send you the books you purchased on eBay, vote “yes” for this one. There were no strong feelings expressed among our staff in regards to the creation of an English Honor Society. Ultimately, we decided that any organization that recognizes student achievement should be supported. We also endorse the addition of security cameras in all campus parking lots to help Public Safety catch car thefts and vandals, a “more visible recycling program,” to finally put to rest the debate of whether Hofstra really recycles and a smoke-free zone encompassing the 20 feet surrounding campus facilities that would spare the non-smokers from breathing in toxic fumes that tend to accumulate outside the entrances to every campus building. This last proposal may seem ridiculous to students who look forward to lighting up as soon as they step out of class, but similar rules have already been implemented on other college campuses.

The final referenda that has not been addressed suggests naming the third Unispan after Keith Cerrato, a University student who was killed while walking along Hempstead Turnpike this year when a car struck him. While this was a tragic accident, sadly, Cerrato was not the only student to pass away in recent years and yet none of these victims’ have buildings or statues on campus dedicated in their honor. While we do not wish to disrespect Cerrato, his family and friends, we have not yet heard a compelling reason why he deserves this memorial over others.

Students: You have been given a diverse collection of issues to weigh in on. These referenda are not binding – meaning that the University is under no obligation to carry out the wishes expressed by student voters. Nevertheless, the administration does take these surveys of student opinions into consideration when making decisions that will shape the future of this University. Even if you are unsure of which candidates to vote for, or whether you will vote for any at all, don’t miss this opportunity to take a stand on the issues that may make or break your years at Hofstra.

Disclosure: Julia Matias, the student who introduced the referenda regarding smoking is News Editor for The Chronicle.

by Andres Soto