Congratulations to the newly elected senators of the 2011-2012 school year. We look forward to their new ideas and proposals, and we wish them the best in their efforts to better the College of William and Mary for all students. But, we want to ask the new senators to use their position of power to eliminate some of the growing problems in the SA.

We want the senators understand that positions are vital to this campus, specifically when it comes to finances. The reserve funds of the SA will be mostly depleted by the end of this semester. The senate controls so much money that could go toward the students in a more efficient and better way. They must use it wisely.

In recent years, the senate has also been filled with individuals looking to serve their own interests, instead of those of the students on campus — the purpose of the entire SA. The students voted the senators into the SA. The senators should remember this fact when it comes to drafting bills and should focus on the substance of the bills, rather than petty politics and pursuing their own agendas. Frankly, we don’t care who passes the most bills; we care about what is being done to better the school. Students look at the senate collectively, not individually.

Senators have the ability to change student perception of the SA. We urge the senators to take advantage of this and truly make a difference at the College. Please remember we voted for you. Leave your ego at the door when accepting the responsibilities of being an SA senator.

Every 10 years, the commonwealth of Virginia redraws district lines in response to new census information. Because this process often becomes overly politicized, this year, the state held a competition among Virginia colleges to come up with a new redistricting program. The College of William and Mary’s team won the competition; their proposal was submitted as a bill but widely ignored by the legislature, an insult to the knowledgeable students who created the plan and another sad show of partisan politics in the Virginia legislature.

The plan selected by the legislature favors incumbent politicians in the redrawing of lines. In Virginia, Republicans control the House of Delegates; Democrats control the Senate. In order to protect their own districts, the delegates and senators created a proposal to ensure the safety of the incumbents of both houses. The plan was comprised of two parts, one pertaining to delegates and another to senators. Gov. Bob McDonnell, surprisingly, vetoed the bill.

Not only was the have bill considered driven by party lines, but it also would have negatively affected the City of Williamsburg. The bill would split the city would into two separate districts, possibly weakening the city’s interests in Richmond — and thus some of the College’s interests. Mayor Clyde Haulman and the City Council sent a letter to the governor encouraging him to veto the bill.

The entire situation is a story of petty politics. Yes, we understand that we are only college students, but the College’s team had a good, balanced plan and one to which Williamsburg residents probably wouldn’t have been so opposed. Maybe now, after the gerrymandering failure, the legislature should look again at the fair proposal. The unfair, partisan plan obviously didn’t work.

With the new increases in tuition costs for students and the most recent clash between the Living Wage Coalition and College of William and Mary President Taylor Reveley, I am continually struck by one common problem: Students, including myself, are not nearly as informed as they should be regarding the finances of the College.

As students who pay to live, eat and go to classes here, we should definitely consider ourselves “customers” of the College. Therefore, it is our responsibility as consumers to be informed about what we are paying for and where our money is going. Regardless of your stance on what the College’s priorities should be when spending money and cutting costs, the point is that we must start by to learn about the current situation. It was made clear by the LWC’s confrontation with Reveley outside the Board of Visitors meeting that these distinctions are very unclear for many of us.

As Reveley pointed out, we all need to remember the College is state-owned. This prevents the College from increasing its revenue by admitting more out-of-state students. Also, there are many constraints concerning where money can and cannot be used, and specific parts of the budget are allocated for certain projects. LWC members have even admitted they do not know what money in the budget can be used to support their proposals. However, I am not writing this column to attack the LWC. Who among us hasn’t complained about the tuition increase, wondered why certain academic buildings get renovated while others don’t, or questioned why a new fraternity complex is now in the works? We are all guilty of wanting everything to be fixed and all aspects of this campus to be of exceedingly high quality, but we aren’t ready
to foot the bill for these changes.

The primary problem is that people tend to think very narrowly about the College’s financial issues. We have to understand the big picture: Even though we are paying a very large sum of money to attend this school, there are also a lot of costs associated with running it, many of which we probably don’t think of or notice on a day-to-day basis. Additionally, it is easy to find things to complain about, but we need to recognize money that goes toward the aspects of the College we love and enjoy. While everyone has their own personal opinion on the most important project to fund, the College must think of the campus as a whole, combining the various wants and needs of over 5,800 undergraduate students, not to mention the 2,000 graduate students.

Looking at the College’s budget constraints and stipulations would probably clear up many of the misconceptions students have about why money is used the way it is. That being said, this information is not always easily accessible, and when it is, students often ignore it. I wonder how many students in the undergraduate population actually read the entire e-mail Reveley sent regarding tuition increases. I know I am much more comfortable with an unpleasant decision if I at least know it is justified. Therefore, we as students need to work on informing ourselves so we can fully understand the situation before we rush to attack those making decisions.

The end has finally come. The Living Wage Coalition has played its trump card and occupied College of William and Mary President Taylor Reveley’s office. A few weeks ago, I incorrectly predicted that the LWC would not, in the end, occupy a building, even though all successful such movements have to resort to building occupations. It turns out they are not playing at “protesting,” as I had originally thought, but, in fact, are very serious about it. The leaders of the group did their homework and were prepared to take the protest all the way. As strange as it might seem — considering the general lack of sympathy from the rest of campus — the LWC has a good shot at forcing concessions.

This might seem counterintuitive to those who have read the stream of editorials issuing from campus publications that instruct the LWC to tone down their chanting and to have a sober debate. The consensus seems to be that this would be a more effective way to advance their goals. If we lived in a perfectly rational and logical society, this may be the case but the fact is that the LWC knows exactly what it is doing and how best to advance its cause. They have carefully avoided or thwarted any rational discussions about their demands. They would lose in such a situation because they do not have a large base of supporters or any sort of actual plan of implementation. This is not because they are juvenile or stupid. Instead, it is because they know they don’t need a majority or a budget plan. Slogans and emotional appeals are much more effective and are harder to dissect and criticize. In the end, their position is not based on economic logic, but on morality.

The leaders of the LWC are following to the letter similar protests at Harvard University and Washington University in St. Louis. The occupation of the president’s office was the culminating step in the year-long campaign. It is possible the LWC hoped to avoid such a measure, but given the current financial environment, they probably knew it would come to this.

The year of escalating protests served to gain them campus-wide recognition and lent a modicum of legitimacy to their occupation, which it would not have done if they had quickly gone from protesting to occupation. They could claim that it was because the administration didn’t listen to them that they were driven to such drastic measures. This is by design, of course, as their campaign strategically made any real dialogue with the administration impossible.

Occupations succeed mainly because of the press. Media attention, especially around college decision time, ties the administration’s hands in dealing with protesters. They do not want to be perceived as overly authoritarian, so, from a strictly public relations perspective, the only choice is to make enough concessions to get the protestors out of the building.

The administration, however, seems to have been either unwilling or unable to placate the LWC. It is likely they expected and prepared for an eventual occupation. They followed the playbook perfectly. After waiting for most of the day so that they could claim to have let the LWC exercise their “right” to express dissent, they moved swiftly and effectively. A few hours later the police were called in to remove the students. All in all, the administration came out on top. The College may get a bit of bad press for “authoritarian practices,” but the protest was too short-lived to garner major attention. The current incarnation of the LWC is likely done for. Many of its most involved members will graduate and their campaign, which relied on escalating disturbances, has no path forward. They may try one last stunt before the year is out, but the administration has shown that it is prepared to deal with them decisively.

At least we can say we had a real building occupation in our time here. After all, the new line is that dramatic protests are part of a complete college education.