LETTER TO THE EDITOR: LUCC represents students well

Having supported the smoking legislation with my voice and vote, I feel that last week’s editorial [staff editorial “LUCC fails to represent students”] about LUCC failing to represent students was completely inappropriate.

Although no rigorous survey has been conducted to determine the ratio of smokers to non-smokers, LUCC has every indication that the number of non-smokers vastly outnumbers the number of smokers. Increasingly many housing applications have requested smoke-free living space. Even the photo poll printed in the last issue showed that four out of six students were either apathetic or advocates of LUCC’s decision. No evidence exists to support the notion that the majority of students smoke, as claimed by the editorial. Some students want smoking in the union, others don’t. I feel that LUCC has done a good job representing both interests.

There is an undeniable feeling in many circles that the union is inaccessible to them because there is simply too much smoke there. A student union is a place for all students. When this fails to be the case, the whole idea of a student union is a joke.

While the editors of the Lawrentian would have us believe that Mr. Shrode had devious intentions when he reported to the council that upgrading the VR would cost $20,000, the argument misses the point. It makes no sense to make large capital investments in a building that will be replaced in several years. Such an investment would be a disastrous waste of funds.

The editorial claimed that students attending the meeting were not given an opportunity to speak. However, Mr. Worman specifically asked for input from the community. Ms. Brown was twice yielded the floor. Addressing the council is merely a matter of raising your hand. The individuals who later claimed not to be represented could have clearly seen how easy it is to be recognized by watching Ms. Brown. The Lawrentian itself admitted these facts on page five of the last issue.

-Nick Aschbrenner

The Lawrentian would like to note that it specifically stated that it did not wish to “say that Shrode has any inappropriate intentions” [“LUCC fails to represent students,” second to last paragraph], only that it is “not possible” to fill simultaneously the advisor’s roll and advocate legislation.

-Ed.

Top