Bad questions asked about Allocation seats’ removal

Dear editor,

In all fairness, I believe the student leaders who do the most programming on this campus should be on the Allocation Committee. These leaders are the most qualified to research, discuss and evaluate a program’s attainability and importance to our campus. This I believe to be true, but I am not sure what other people on this campus are thinking.

In regards to the removal of permanent seats on Allocation, I ask the student body, does this change really do anything to benefit the students of this campus? That is one reoccurring question asked by the Allocation Committee. Do they follow their own expectations? Would it not make sense to have the people most knowledgeable and experienced in programming included in a committee that discusses campus programming? These are the questions to be asking.

I quote Undergraduate Student Senate senator for business and finance Sean Groves stating, “While we do have a lot of student organizations here, a lot of them don’t do programming, but what we have to focus on are those student organizations that do programming, and that’s what this comes down to.” Why is the Allocation targeting the removal of the student organization that does programming?

If most requests heard are for programming, and that is Allocation’s focus, then why would they suggest the removal of experienced organizations such as Inter Greek Programming Board, All Campus Programming Board and Black United Students? A better adjustment would have been to offer seats to Kent Interhall Council, Week of Welcome Coordinators and Kent Student Center Programming. I believe more additions to the Allocation Committee would improve campus programming. In making those additions, Allocation could increase the knowledge of programming necessary during the decision-making process. I also believe fewer programs would overlap and more students would be knowledgeable about events if Allocation was expanded.

Students of Kent State University, I plead that you continue to get involved on campus and realize that USS and Allocation are taking backward movements. Wake up! Reality is here, and someone needs to rouse the student population before all your decision-making resources are monopolized.

In the past two years, I have seen improvements within student leadership and networking on campus. I have also witnessed the birth of a new generation of leadership and involvement with the new class of freshmen. Opportunities have also been provided by President Lefton to change our campus for the better. I think USS is giving up before offering the students a chance to adjust to a more accepting college culture. Let’s be honest, the real deal is this power struggle over student activity funds. Power attempts have been taken for the past decade by Undergraduate Student Senate and if not succeeded this year will be attempted next year. Does the Undergraduate Student Senate and Allocation have the students’ interests in mind?

Shana Scott

All Campus Programming Board president