Our View-Ethics blinded and blurred through ongoing BLR saga

"We should never underestimate the power and influence of academics." — Cal State Long Beach President F. King Alexander.

Denying CSULB's Beach Legacy Referendum last week may have only been the beginning, rather than the end, of a process to raise student fees for athletics. Whether the BLR passed or failed, it was really intended to gauge student opinion rather than actually institutionalize the fee.

The ultimate power to push this forward to the California State University board of trustees rests in the hands of Alexander, according to CSU Executive Order 1034.

University plays ethical kickball

"The president, Alexander, could institute the fee, or some fee, unilaterally. Fresno State students last year voted down an athletics fee increase, but the university president cut the proposal in half and imposed it himself," the Long Beach Press-Telegram reported.

Bob Keisser, the same reporter covering the BLR's failure, wrote an earlier column promoting the referendum that later ran, with permission from the Press-Telegram, as a CSULB Intercollegiate Athletics-paid advertisement in the Daily Forty-Niner during the election.

As compelling as Keisser's reprinted column-turned-advertisement was, we should start connecting dots to discuss ethics. This issue was never considered for a city bond measure, but was aimed strictly at CSULB students. Why not a measure that would have benefitted the entire city, like Long Beach City College has done in recent years? After all, it's only student money we're talking about, right? Save that thought.

The ‘Hail Mary' ethics pass

In essence, a student referendum is merely a litmus test to advise the campus president on how students might feel about proposing new mandatory fees for particular use — the voting results aren't binding.

The Student Fee Advisory Committee will now make a recommendation to Alexander on what they determine students feel. Alexander and the SFAC can simply interpret that those who voted "yes" are more important than those who voted "no." We hope Alexander listens to student voices and puts the BLR on the back burner until our volatile economy is more stable.

A prime problem with the SFAC is that it is comprised of elected Associated Students Inc. officers. ASI stands to benefit from the BLR by protecting its own budget. Elected officials holding positions on committees from which they can directly profit — like protecting or increasing their budgets — infers corrupt politics, especially because they control the information flow. That's like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

What the referendum process highlights are serious problems with applied ethics, reaching into the upper echelon of our campus, that need to be addressed. Practically every aspect of a university is predicated on teaching ethics, not only as relative to certain philosophies, but as they apply to life. This shouldn't have degenerated into the "Gunfight at the OK Corral."

SFAC members already displayed the color of their stripes. They exposed students to an unethical process that lacked regulations and oversight in a fairly new platform — online voting. They were submissive when they should have been assertive in protecting limbs of the student body.

No referees on playing field

Information about the BLR was heavily public relations-oriented to favor passage. There were no regulations for such things as "unofficial polling places," campaigning near polls, or provisions giving opponents an equal playing field. ASI senators were "advised" by faculty advisers not to take a stand.

Instructors allegedly cancelled athletics classes and walked students to the Pyramid to vote. Student athletes reportedly made disrespectful late-night forays through residence halls pounding on doors to coerce students to, "Get up and vote yes on the BLR."

The "rules" as Vice President of Student Services Doug Robinson — also the SFAC chair — and Alexander explained to Daily Forty-Niner reporters were that there are no rules.

When Daily Forty-Niner reporters sought clarity from SFAC/ASI representatives, they were told "We can't comment." While our reporters and editors were doing their jobs they met intimidation, refusal and silence. The First Amendment was nowhere to be found.

Bullies in the press box

Students pushing for explanations about ethics and the lack of rules were treated as inconsequential. Complaints supposedly made by Daily Forty-Niner reporters and other students were waved off as "frivolous" by Robinson during the meeting announcing the BLR results.

Dismissive treatment was not only prevalent throughout much of our coverage, but was unconscionable and inexcusable from administrators. Every complaint about what affects all students should be treated as important; we are the consumers and resultant victims when transparency isn't practiced.

The SFAC was charged with making certain the entire process was fair, ethical and balanced. They failed every obligation. We can't, however, expect the SFAC to shoulder the entire burden of disgrace over ethical lapses; they were manipulated by many who may have had vested interests and ulterior motivations in getting the BLR passed.

Lack of rules costs game

The BLR might have eventually benefitted many students, but university employees and administrators with hegemony, greed and disrespect as their guiding lights hijacked it.

We didn't oppose the BLR because we hate our university or our athletics programs; we argued that it was impractical during our current economic crises. Students from low-income families, many of whom are minorities, would not be able to afford CSULB in fall 2010. Some rightfully brought up civil and human rights concerns.