[2688] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan Wang)
Wed Oct 18 01:09:30 2006
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610180054340.23767@ptolomaea.mit.edu>
From: Jonathan Wang <jtwang@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:08:42 -0500
To: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
On Oct 17, 2006, at 11:57 PM, Steven M Kelch wrote:
> My wording sucks, its late. dont misquote me. Here's a correct summary:
>
> "A resolution that completely removed the studio from control of the
> Logs
> would not pass. I don't understand your objection to asking them to
> honor
> their agreement from 4 years ago."
>
> That's my final word. Sorry for the spam.
How does "the UA doesn't think the Logs are honoring their agreement to
share their studio under some (presumably) unclear terms" evolve into
"the UA thinks it has the right to reallocate student group property as
it sees fit?"
I don't understand how a very specific action directed at one group
allegedly not honoring its agreement ballooned into discussion of a
potential action affecting all student groups at MIT. Why does the UA
feel that it is necessary to extend this overreaching regulation? Why
does it think that centralized control can be more effective than a
free market?
If I understand this right, the result will be extending the bickering
of Finboard allocations into a yearlong process over every piece of
property owned by any student group. Wars between student groups won't
be limited to the amount of money each group gets budgeted at the
beginning of the year, but can essentially be waged continually by
group A trying to take group B's property that group A would have
bought if they had been allocated more money.
How does this help anyone?
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
