What's the Real News?

This semester I became a Hatchet reader. While reading, I have been asked if many people actually read the Hatchet. I usually say yes, but after the past few issues, I am more inclined to say no. Building off of Senioritis' post, The Hatchet has more work to do than just add more details to its stories. How about add some pertinent stories that concern the undergraduate population? Especially those revolving around the Student Association, who should have an impact on students.

This week's issue featured another form of social media to stalk people. They reported the Student Association's recruitment of GoodCrush, "a public online forum where users can write messages to their crushes in the hopes of discovering mutual attraction." The S.A. brought GoodCrush to GW, to allow students to reach their crushes without having to face embarrassment of rejection.

I use the word impact lightly when describing the S.A.'s importance. Most Hatchet reports merely report penalties from the JEC or the winner of the election. But what is the S.A. doing for us? An article like GoodCrush just makes the Student Association even less important in students' lives. Why should students care about what the S.A. does when the Hatchet shows a ridiculous announcement made.

In light of recent elections, I'll cut the Hatchet some slack when it comes to highlighting candidates, but throughout the year, there has been minimal information on the accomplishments made. The new constitution? That's a big deal, maybe not to most students, but Hatchet writers need to write to them, and make them understand why it is important.

Hatchet: please let us know what the Student Association is actually accomplishing this year. It might actually make students take the organization more seriously in the first place.

Hatchet, maybe add some details

I am not an avid Hatchet reader, in fact “non-Hatchet reader” would be a better description, but out of necessity for this blog post, I ventured over to the Hatchet website and found an article which exemplified why I choose not to read campus news. Justin Kits’s March 4, 2010 article “Proposal could strip research profs of vote” lacked analysis and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the topic which was then passed onto the reader.

First, if there is an institution that the GW community cares less about than the Student Association it is the Faculty Senate.

Next, the article takes a very wordy approach to saying something very simple, that the resolution would bring the School of Public Health and Health Services (SPHHS) in line with the rest of GW schools.

In non-GW Medical Center programs, research faculty are not allowed to vote on certain governance issues. But many faculty members in the SPHHS - which is a part of the medical center - are research-based, so stripping them of the ability to vote would take the rights from a significant number of faculty members.

If my above understanding is a misinterpretation of the problem, then the author did a poor job explaining it; and if I am correct then the author spent a lot of time explaining it in order to fill space.

This article is online, and Hatchet editors failed to provide any links to readers where they can either read the resolution, or obtain futher information from the SPHHS and the Faculty Senate, information I found with a simple Google Search.

Journalists Love Journalists

If there's one event that will always be covered in the media, it will be the ones which glorify of their own profession. In Thursday's edition of The GW Hatchet, a story was reported on an event at the Elliott School of International Affairs which occurred Monday night. Three war correspondents from major newspapers (two from the Washington Post, one form the New York Times) described the difficulty of reporting from war zones.

During the period of time between editions of the Hatchet, Monday to Wednesday, six Elliott School-sponsored events occured:

1. Workers Without Borders? Culture, Migration, and the Political Limits to Globalization

2. Security Policy Forum: The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: The Journalistic Challenges

3. Film: God Grew Tired of Us

4. Invisible Children: Film and Discussion of the Conflict in Northern Uganda

5. Forecasting and Tracking Precursors to Violence in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the North Caucasus: What We Knew, When We Knew It, and Why It Matters

6. Ambassadors Forum: A Talk with Iraqi Ambassador Sumaida'ie

Not to mention that there were many other events at other schools within GW. Of all of these events, the Hatchet covered only two, the talk with the Iraqi Ambassador and the talk with the war correspondents. It is understandable to cover the talk with Ambassador Sumaida'ie, as it is not every day that Ambassadors speak here. But there were four other events to cover, and the Hatchet just happens to choose the one about journalists. The article did not even make the top 10 Most Popular articles, so it is apparent that nobody cares. We all know they love to write about themselves, but maybe if they spent a little more time covering other important events and less time glorifying their profession, we might actually take their publication seriously.

Breaking News: GW Hatchet Names New Editor-In-Chief

Tonight, the editorial board of The GW Hatchet named current Assistant News Editor Lauren French, as the new editor-in-chief for the 2010-2011 academic year. Check back for more details.

GW Considers Increasing Size of Virginia Campus

George Washington University Executive Vice President and Treasurer Lou Katz stated that the school is currently deliberating expanding the size of its Virginia campus, hoping to transfer many of the administrative offices outside of the District. Earlier in 2009, the university moved the tax and financial aid offices to the Ashburn, Virginia campus, and hope to continue the trend in 2010. Katz outlined the reason behind the move, explaining:

We will continue to move more of the administrative functions out of Foggy Bottom and onto the Virginia campus... It also allows us more freedom for how we move people around campus. The goal of this is to create more research space, more educational space and more administrative space out there.

Although Katz is seems optimistic that the move will occur, the Board of Trustees has yet to debate the matter. The GW Hatchet expounds on the issue:

Katz said the University is not certain it will purchase the building, saying that GW is gathering additional information on the property before they make any recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The board must approve all financial decisions the University makes.

George Washington owns four buildings on the Virginia campus, which, according to the Hatchet, has increased by 25 percent in size within the calendar year.

Food Rage!

In the opinion section of the Hatchet there is an article on GW food supplier, Sodexo. The article was highlighting the poor quality and overpriced food that occupied J Street, and stating that when the University's contract with Sodexo runs out then there should be a change in supplier.

I completely agree with the article in the sense that there is a problem with J Street and the Sodexo outlets there. They are all over priced and food seems both unhealthy and of a poor quality. However the solution the article emphasizes is a change in the supplier, pointing out Aramark as an option, something which seems crazy.

After successfully highlighting the key problem at J Street, Peter Horan fails to point out a solution to that problem:

"The real outrage is that this Sodexo food court is disguised as a benefit to students, and included in everybody's bill! Each freshman must pay $1,400 per year to the program, while sophomores are required to pay $500. Based on GW's enrollment, that guarantees Sodexo revenues of roughly $4,750,000 at minimum! The one power consumers possess is where they choose to spend their money, but at GW, we don't seem to have that luxury."

The system in place at the moment, and the solution given by the article, have and will always create a monopoly where students are given no choice where and how they spend their money. As an international student, I never expected to see such blatant market authoritarianism in the so called 'land of the free'. If an example was need about how a so called 'free market system' can be exploited, look no further than the 10 year contact between Sodexo and GW.

Science and Engineering Complex: Cut the Red Tape and Build It

Last week, there was an editorial in the Hatchet criticizing GW for not demanding a specific monetary figure from the construction company that has been contracted to build the new Science and Engineering Complex. She argues that GW is recklessly pursuing an incredibly expensive project at a time in which our economic circumstances don't provide much hope for the financial future of our University.

But the factors at play in the initial stage of the process still present problems - as the nation is not yet free of the harmful effects of the economic situation.

However, she fails to mention a couple of important points. One, due to the recession, construction contracts are at a lower rate right now than they have been in many, many years. There are less jobs to go around, and as a result, nobody is really building anything. However, while the University's fundraising totals have been down, they are in a unique situation where they have a dedicated source of funding in the form of students' tuition. Tuition increases every year (and will increase 3% for next year), and that's not something a lot of private entities can claim when they're looking to construct something. It's simple economics: Demand is way down, so costs are cheaper.

Second, the money that is dedicated to the Science and Engineering Complex will more than make up for itself on a couple of fronts. Donations earmarked specifically for this project will undoubtedly increase if and when GW makes a strong push using the final blueprint. Everyone understands the importance of these two fields, and many people that donate already or new donors who are passionate about these fields will be much more likely to donate if they see GW making a legitimate commitment to this project. People aren't willing to keep giving money to a product that they don't see changing or evolving. By doing this, GW would send a clear signal that they want to be an elite collegiate institution by providing its community with the facilities reserved for one.

This doesn't even include the donations that will be made by future graduates of this institution, which should be at least moderately more successful when given new facilities. Not only will the new devices and space give these students a better work space, but it will draw higher level talent from high school and faculty from other schools. These two draws will do a lot to increase the effectiveness and long-term potential of the new complex.

She concludes her piece with the following quote:

Regardless of the specific reasons, just as one would not set out for a destination on the horizon without knowing what it would take to get there, GW should not pursue building the Science and Engineering Complex without a more specific cost.

This is a misleading statement. Implying that because GW doesn't have an EXACT cost for the project means that they do not have a long-term plan is ridiculous. GW has a vision. They know what it will take to make our University as good as it can be, and President Knapp has seen from the outside steps that other similar institutions have taken to ensure that they're mentioned along with other top colleges and universities. In my opinion, they need to move on this project as quickly as possible, as the impact, financial and otherwise, will be far greater than a couple of million dollars of fluctuation. This project is an essential and laudable step by the administration to make GW a much more balanced university, and it should be made a top priority to get it down, however they can.