HARDLY STRICTLY a preview SEE PAGES
8 9 AND
Gospel Gators win second place See the story and video
GOLDEN GATE XPRESS //
STUDENT-RUN NEWSPAPER PROUDLY SERVING THE SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY SINCE 1927.
GOLDENGATEXPRESS.ORG
// 10.03.12
VOLUME LXXXXV ISSUE 6
State assembly gives students voice in raising fees
BY ERIN DAGE | erindage@mail.sfsu.edu
Costly remodel draws mixed reviews BY CHARLOTTE BOUDESTEIJN | cboudest@mail.sfsu.edu
With shiny iPads and HD flatscreens, the remodeled information desk at the Cesar Chavez Student Center is trying to attract more students, but not everyone seems happy with the high-tech remodel. While students can go to the Student Information Center to see Muni and BART schedules, purchase Clipper cards and ask around for general information, the recent renovations have been met with mixed reaction. The desk project, which included the desk area’s wall, ceiling and electrical work, was estimated to cost $68,000. Each student pays $82 per semester to the student center. Guy Dalpe, managing director at the student center, couldn’t tell how much was spent on the remodeling of the information desk. The money came from the student repair and replacement fund. Dalpe thought the renovation was necessary in order to freshen up the student center. “The desk hadn’t been renovated in over 37 years. The reactions of the students are really positive, especially with the layout in general,” he said. SF State student Lauren Harrington thought the design of the nformation desk was visually appealing but not much else. “My first thought when I saw it — and the iPads that are locked down to it — was that the money used to pay for this would have been better spent on paying for much-needed classes,” the 20-year-old broadcast and electronic communication arts major said. “If there is enough money coming in from student fees to pay for a complete restructuring of the student information desk, two iPads, heavy locking security equipment to (lock) down the iPads, ergonomic chairs, a disco light and to rent all of the blow-up and carnival equipment, plus who knows what more, then there is too much going towards the student government.” The student center gets 65 percent of its total revenue from the student body center fee and the other 35 percent from operating revenue. The operating revenue consists of commercial services, support services, food services, the recreation center and general programs. The remodel of the student center took longer than initially planned, with the final project completed in mid-September, a jump from the original SEE FACULTY ON PAGE 5
C
OME JAN. 1, CALifornia State University trustees are required to consult with and justify tuition and fee hikes to students. Assembly Bill 970 by Assemblyman Paul Fong, D-Cupertino, requires CSU and University of California trustees to consult with their respective statewide school associations at least 30 days before a tuition raise. In addition to consultation, tuition hikes are now required to have a 90 day period from when they are instated to when they become effective, instead of a fee immediately being posted. Trustees must give justifications that include why there is a fee increase, the purpose of the money, how students in financial need can be helped
and possible ways of avoiding the fee increase through alternative proposals. Student representatives from all 23 of CSUs are required to meet with CSU trustees before a scheduled fee hike, according to the California State Student Association. Adenike Hamilton, president of Associated Students, Inc. is a representative of SF State. Fong believes fee increases have made higher education difficult for many students. “Our economic challenges have made access to higher education more difficult for many of California’s students and working families,” Fong said. “Student fees at our public colleges and universities have skyrocketed with little advance public notice, minimal consultation, little to no transparency and little to no accountability.” Meredith Vivian, director of government and SEE BILL ON PAGE 3
FULL TIME tuition fees
$5,000 $4,500
Tuition costs have risen by nearly 50 percent since 2006
$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 Source: California State University Budget Office
2006 and
2007
2007 and
2008
2008
2009
2010
2011
and
and
and
and
2009
2010
2011
2012
Prop. 37 raises issues for food industry
ACADEMIC school years
BY ALEX EMSLIE
aemslie@mail.sfsu.edu
and CRISTINA RAMOS
cjramos@mail.sfsu.edu
PART TWO IN A SERIES OF SIX STORIES EXAMINING CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITIONS
SEE POLL ON PAGE 11
The nation and the world are watching California for the outcome of Proposition 37, which would require food companies to label products that contain genetically engineered ingredients if passed in the Nov. 6 election. The proposition would set a regulatory precedent for the biochemical food industry, which consists of global conglomerates in control of much of the world’s food supply. Prop. 37 supporters say consumers have a right to know if their food contains genetically modified ingredients. Opponents argue that GM foods have never been proven unsafe, and requiring labeling will raise food costs and invite frivolous lawsuits. Opponents also claim the initiative contains exemptions that play favorites with some food sellers while targeting others. “Prop. 37 sounds simple but it’s far from it,” Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 37 Coalition, said. “It will increase
grocery bills by $350 to $400 per year, per family.” According to Fairbanks,1 the proposition excludes dairy, alcohol, meat and restaurant foods. “But you have to label pet food,” she said. Proponents of the proposition reject the argument that the initiative would raise food costs. Food companies would have more than one year to implement the new labels, according to the text of the proposition. “(Proposition) 37 is absolutely vital to the democratic process,” Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now, said. “People have the right to be informed. Nobody should circumvent that to protect profits.” The Yes on 37 campaign had raised $3.9 million as of Sept. 23, according to donor disclosure records. Opponents had collected almost nine times as much, or $32.5 million.