greg's virtual dwelling | CGA's stupidity shows through again

CGA's stupidity shows through again

My mother always told me to write thank-you notes when someone gives me a gift.

So, heeding my mother's advice, as I always do, I'm sending the Community Government Association (CGA) a thank-you note (in spirit anyway) for their gift of another column topic for this week: the athletic scheduling resolution. At this rate, the CGA could write my columns for the rest of the semester.

The CGA resolution, sponsored by Joe Radzievich, student trustee and executive member of the CGA, begins simply but courageously: "The student senate, being sensitive to the unique sacrifices and contributions student athletes make to the university . . . " The resolution goes on to suggest that the Bloomsburg University Curriculum Committee (BUCC) support the Conflict Avoidance Scheduling proposal in front of them from the Student Athletic Advising Committee.

While the CGA may consider the second part of the resolution to be the crux of the issue, I take offense to the entire first part. But let's pick this apart to see what they are really saying.

The word "unique" by definition means "one and only or having no like or equal." With that definition in mind, let's look a bit closer at what the CGA is actually saying.

Since student athletes make a "unique" sacrifice to the university, one might think that athletes are the only group that actually makes sacrifices to be here. If that's what the CGA thinks, then the student body missed out on a huge opportunity at the CGA election a couple weeks ago.

If sacrificing means practicing, don't students involved in plays and musicals also make a sacrifice? If sacrificing means missing class, does the CGA think that athletes are the only people that miss class due to an activity? While class attendance is important, sometimes other priorities take precedence. What about students who work 30 hours a week and also attend classes full time? How about students who have children? Surely anyone who has that much stress must be making a sacrifice.

What constitutes a unique contribution in the CGA's eyes? If it's a monetary contribution, I'll grant the CGA a partial victory. Sports do indeed contribute monetarily to the university. But if you stop there, you are missing a much bigger picture. If bringing revenue to the university is unique, then what do plays and musicals, media organizations, and the Program Board bring? Besides just these organizations, what about the Husky Ambassadors? Among other duties, they meet, greet and interact with many of the alumni who often give money to the university. Certainly they make a contribution to the university, but I don't see them scheduling first.

If a contribution to the university could also mean a contribution to the community as altruistic students, what about everyone involved with SOLVE? What about some Greek organizations that often do charitable work for the community? What about students who volunteer at Big Brothers/Sisters? Have they not made a valuable contribution to the university simply by being enrolled here?

If a contribution to the university means positive publicity, then why aren't students who make positive headlines in the media scheduling first? They have brought something positive to the community, and the university certainly looks better for having their talents here. Why isn't everyone in every campus media organization scheduling first? Every week The Voice circulates outside of campus, and it is also used for student recruiting. What about WBUQ, which certainly broadcasts outside the campus, sometimes as far as 25 miles? What about the Spectrum, which publishes to the campus and community? Certainly everyone involved in these organizations in one way or another has made a positive contribution as far as publicity to the university. They should then be given the same privileges that the CGA wants to afford student athletes.

The problem with this resolution doesn't lie with the student athlete scheduling. Rather it lies with the CGA. Whether you agree with preferential scheduling or not, the CGA does not have the authority to control such an issue. Rather, BUCC does. The CGA can only advise BUCC as to what the proper course of action is, and more importantly, what they believe the students as a whole believe. After all, about 12 of you elected the executive board members a couple weeks ago. No wonder they didn't promote the elections. If I were going to do something like this resolution, I wouldn't want somebody to be able to vote me out either.

Once again, the CGA decided to stick its nose where it didn't belong and help out some of their friends. And sadly, I am not exaggerating. According to Amanda Gudknecht, CGA president, this resolution was created and approved because a lot of the executive board members are friends with student athletes.

Wow. If the CGA makes these sorts of resolutions for their friends, I'd hate to see what they do to their enemies. And, after this column, I may just very well find out.

But this resolution goes back to a larger issue with the CGA. They talk and talk and talk and really don't say much of anything. And, when they do try to say something, they come out sounding like spoiled brats.

Beyond just this ill-worded and poorly thought-out resolution, let's not forget the networking resolution passed a few weeks ago. Without talking to Bob Abbott, Director of Academic Computing, Glenn Beiber, Director of Computer Services, or Linda Sowash, Director of Residence Life, the CGA devised a resolution saying that network connections should be as fast as possible.

Boy, somebody was really thinking there.

If I didn't know better, I'd think I was reading a United Nations (UN) resolution because they're just as useful. The main difference being, the UN actually does research before they spout off. The CGA, however, hasn't taken their lead.

What is with these pointless resolutions anyway? Of course people are going to agree with what they say because they aren't really saying anything. While the CGA is on the resolution warpath, why not make a resolution to make the roast beef in the cafeteria as tasty as it can possibly be? Or, why not draft a resolution continuing the anti land-mine sentiment that just going around campus these days? How about a resolution that combats releasing ravenous dogs on campus to trim the population?

In fact, I've got a CGA resolution for you: "Recognizing that Greg Albert writes a column for The Voice each week, the CGA resolves that Greg Albert is a Voice columnist."

There, that should satisfy their criteria of trying to stir up controversy without actually saying anything.

The CGA is an organization that the student body should want to listen to. They are the supposed leaders on campus. They distributed nearly $1 million last year. They could run the campus, and quite honestly, they should be running the campus. But it's resolutions like these that just put them back with the rest of the student population. Sure they speak, but that's only when they want to increase their political visibility. Cases in point: the networking and student athlete scheduling resolution.

With any luck, a well-worded thank you note to the CGA and a resolution behind me, maybe I can finally schedule that pottery class.