Skip to main content

Editorial: Athletics Fee Referendum Is Invalid


("Money - Savings" by 401(K) - 2012 via Flickr)

Since the recent athletics fee increase referendum passed on March 22, I have been trying to process the results. 

For readers who do not know, this spring, the UT-Tyler athletics program proposed a roughly $90 per semester increase to mandatory Intercollegiate Athletics Fee. The proposal called for an incremental increase by $30 per semester over the next three years, until fee ultimately reached the $90 proposed increase in 2026. So in the end, the increase would raise students’ maximum semester payment from $270 to $330 by 2026. (It would also increase the semester minimum from $96 now to $132.) This was the proposal and students voted on it from March 20 to March 22.
However, my issue lately is not with the increase itself, but rather with how the referendum supposedly passed. 

According to The Student Engagement Office, students passed the referendum (meaning, they approved the fee increase) by 50.34% to 46.96%. The referendum also had 937 turnout. 

Yet, where I take issue—and what I cannot accept—is the language of the proposition officials used to measure student opinion. This language was so partial, and so in favor of the athletics program that I believe it fundamentally corrupted the election as a poll of student opinion.

It read,

"Nearly 300 student-athletes participate in intercollegiate athletics at UT Tyler on 18 teams. The UT Tyler Patriots compete in the NCAA Division II Lone Star Conference with the lowest student athletic fee in the conference. An increase in this fee will make other funds available for student engagement and support opportunities. Do you support the increase of the UT Tyler athletic fee to fund athletics, increase the value of your UT Tyler degree, and provide students with more engagement and support opportunities?"

This language’s design is to compel the reader to vote in favor of the athletics fee increase.

This language is unacceptable.

A referendum’s purpose, especially one over a fee increase, is to discern a population’s majority opinion. A referendum, therefore, is an opinion poll, not a sales call. It is a survey of student opinion, not a piece of campaign literature.

This language clearly violates the referendum’s official  purpose and, consequently, corrupts it as a valid source of student sentiment.  

The referendum student government conducted was not an opinion survey, but rather an expression of special interest and of the extent of its influence in the election.

Such biased and persuasive language should not have been on the ballot of what was supposed to be an impartial survey. Such behavior is below the acceptable standards of what a referendum ought to be.

Since the referendum was not an independent survey, then it is not a true representation of student opinion. 

The referendum is invalid.

Students should reject the referendum’s results as a valid representation of student opinion and should call upon both the University and The UT System Board of Regents (the university’s governing board) to do the same. The ballot language corrupted the poll’s results. The referendum is invalid.

Dean of Students Contact - dos@uttyler.edu

UT-Tyler President Contact - kcalhoun@uttyler.edu 

Board of Regents Contact- bor@utsystem.edu

Feature Image: "Money - Savings" by 401(K) - 2012 via Flickr

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Editorial: Three Types of Campus Activism Work

  (Source:  "Justin Whelan" by Kate Ausburn via Flickr ) Within the university context, there are three communities: students, faculty and staff. However, once one has a basic understanding of how these communities work together to govern the university (a.k.a., the "shared governance" model), then one can still find it difficult to identify how one can participate in shaping the university to reflect his values.  Therefore, this article will introduce three types of activism work that I have noticed in my years observing campus activity. I hope these types will illuminate a path for the reader of greater participation within his campus community and towards influencing the institution for his values. So without further adieu, let us introduce the three basic forms of campus activism.  In my observation of campus advocacy over the years, I have noticed three types of campus activism: compliance work, legislative work and public education work.  An effe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Editorial: An Introduction To University Governance

( Photo : ''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr ) In my previous articles, we spoke of our fictional heroine Molly who took the proper steps to advocate for university change successfully. We used her story to illustrate how the policy change process at a university works. Afterwards in the next article, we analyzed how her story illustrated important elements in the policy change process, such as how every stakeholder has a priority list and how a successful advocate will know how to either appeal to or influence this list.  Most recently, we noted how even with all the tactics in the world, it is a cause that gives one’s advocacy meaning. Now in this article, we will explore the university’s internal governance system, which is the context in which a student’s advocacy occurs. At the end of this article, the reader should have a better grasp of the advocacy environment within higher education. Metaphorically speaking, the reader will...
Post a Comment
Read more

Editorial: Introduction to The Shared Governance Model

  (''Court Gavel - Judge's Gavel - Courtroom'' by wp paarz via Flickr) In my previous articles, I gave a broad overview the university’s governance system and recently introduced the three main stakeholder groups within the university environment: faculty, students and staff. I wrote before about how a student who understands the university governance environment can participate in it to his own benefit.  To understand how these stakeholder groups interact together, let us now discuss The Shared Governance Model of higher education.      The Shared Governance Model (or “shared governance”) is a philosophy of university governance in which the university’s governing board (in our case, The Board of Regents) heavily relies upon the advice and counsel of the three stakeholder groups to govern the university. In shared governance, the board gives each group (or constituency) authority to advise the board on matters of the constituency’s expertise.  For ex...
Post a Comment
Read more