We learned in last Wednesday’s SGA Senate meeting that not everyone picks up a newspaper on a daily basis. It shows.
Representatives on the student-elected legislative body debated for an extended period of time on the merits of CCSU’s New York Times readership program.
The program has been in place for several years, providing daily copies of the nation’s newspaper of record to students free of charge and at a 75-percent discount to funding partners. The program is funded primarily by student activity fees through a joint initiative by the SGA and other campus organizations.
The action started off innocently enough as Senator Chris Kyle reached out to senators for assistance with the program. There were no takers, but the damage was done: minutes later, an impromptu debate about the merits of the New York Times was in full swing.
Some senators suggested the number of newspapers provided through the program be reduced because there were too many copies of the New York Times left over at the end of the day. This observation is disingenuous, if not patently false. Not a single member of this media organization can recall an occasion when the Times can be found after lunchtime.
Perhaps our senators are unable to distinguish between the newspaper in question and another, more colorful newspaper sitting on the same shelf (of which many copies are often available at the end of each day)?
Many senators condemned the availability of newspapers in the student center, saying that the program is simply another opportunity for students to engage in spontaneous paper maché projects and the creation of fashionable newspaper hats.
Luckily, one senator corrected that assertion and said the New York Times isn’t the newspaper of choice for arts and crafts, it’s the Recorder. Phew.
In the senator’s defense, he said “no offense” and glanced in our general direction. No offense taken, but the senate isn’t getting off that easy; the debate that took place around this issue was out of control.
While an exception can be made for those that attempted to push the dialogue forward, too many used incorrect assumptions and unreliable observations as grounds to denounce the program. This points to a greater problem we have noticed in the student population at large: a fundamental inability to leverage data and critical thinking to participate in thoughtful discourse and pragmatic problem solving.
After our years at this university, we will all expected to be able to join in these efforts. Those who do not will be left behind in many aspects of society. Let’s not waste our years here stuck in mindless debate.
In this case, we cannot help but criticize those that would end a program that can serve to improve these conditions. Daily newspaper readership has been linked to educational development time and time again. Picking up one of these bastions of current events and information could help develop invaluable critical thinking skills in both the student body and our student government legislative body.
