Now, before you get up in arms, please allow us to reason with you.

The aforementioned increase in tuition we’re advocating is only $5. This dollar amount would be tacked onto the $25 taken out of each student’s tuition every semester for the student activities fee.

Since our job is to seek the truth and report it, we must tell you that it would mean more money to use toward expenditures for all student organizations on campus.

That includes The Oakland Post, the newspaper you are now either holding in your hands or reading online.

Currently, there are eight organizations that make up the Student Activities Fund Assessment Committee. In addition to The Post, representatives of WXOU radio, Student Video Productions, the Oakland University Student Congress, Student Program Board, Student Life Lecture Board and club sports are on the committee.

The Student Activities Funding Board, which is an umbrella of sorts to all other organizations now represented on the committee, is the final member of the board.

These direct-funded organizations each receive a certain percentage of the fee every semester. A special projects fund also receives one percent of the fee. The amounts fluctuate along with student enrollment.

An increase in this fee is not unheard of.

A necessity for more money correlates with the growth of the student population and number of student organizations. According to SAFB chair Brandon Hanna, at least 50 new organizations have been formed during his tenure — which began in Fall 2010 — alone.

He said the numbers don’t match up. If every organization were to get the amount of money it’s eligible for, it would cost at least four times SAFB’s operating budget.

Some may object, arguing they’re fed up with steadily rising tuition rates. Those are largely due to a decrease in state appropriations for higher education, which have steadily fallen over the past decade and this upcoming year appears to be no different.

The 2012 state budget is projected to have $1.8 billion less in revenue. So what is the extra $5 for?

While upping tuition rates will have the effect of maintaining educational quality, a boosted SAFAC fund would have immediate positive impact.

For instance, free copies of The New York Times are available on campus five days a week. With a sale price of $2 each, students would get their $30 worth just by reading the Times every day for three weeks.

Plus, various student organizations hold events  daily, many of which feature free food and guest lecturers.

By adding $5 — the cost of a Subway sandwich — to the student activity fee, student life at Oakland University will stay on a path of continued growth.

Those not active on campus would complain that the extra fee would benefit them. Our response: You’re paying for it, use it.

Consider the student activities fee an investment in student life. Unlike the textbooks you sell back at the end of the semester for a diminished return, the student activities fee is worth every penny.

The perennial hot-button issue of gun control often misses the point.

“The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” states the latter half of the Second Amendment.

But in light of the recent events in Tucson, Ariz., we have to ask why a citizen would ever need to legally own a high-volume magazine of ammunition. Jared Lee Loughner, 22, who killed six and wounded 14, was allegedly carrying a Glock 19 that could hold 33 rounds.

True, Loughner has been deemed mentally unstable, but really: Why would anyone need to fire that many rounds so quickly? The only reason would be to take human life.

A 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, prohibited such clips.

Now the national debate has turned to whether Congress will again pass similar legislation.

It is not a partisan issue; it’s an issue of human life.

While there are national and state laws that apply to every citizen when it comes to gun control, the campus debate is a whole different story.

State laws allow gun owners to openly carry legally registered firearms, but licensed individuals are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons in college classrooms and dorms. Bills were introduced in 2009 in the Michigan House and Senate to amend Senate Bill 747 to remove those areas from the list of prohibited premises.

Oakland University Police Chief Samuel Lucido said it’s a matter of local control, and we agree.

While the bills are stalled, Lucido believes a new Michigan legislature will most likely act on them.

According to Lucido, firearms of any sort are prohibited from campus.

While organizations like OU Students for Concealed Carry on Campus advocate for the passage of the bill and oppose infringement of the right to carry firearms, we believe the rules in place at OU are correct.

Colleges and universities are first and foremost a learning environment. Campus security and safety are priorities for all, especially the administration and police department.

OUPD has training and equipment in place to immediately respond to emergency situations including shooting incidents like those that occurred at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech.

Lucido said the OUPD is equipped and hopes to do their “best to be prepared for any emergency — to respond to any emergency event.”

The university has made its stance on the gun issue clear and Lucido echoes those sentiments.

“OU believes our rules regulating firearms are correct,” Lucido said.

His claim is backed up, too.

A recent Virginia Supreme Court decision unanimously ruled that a ban on guns in buildings and at campus events at George Mason University does not indeed violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We hope that national bans on unnecessary weapons are considered again — and this time stay in place.

The campus community must certainly share all resources on campus, but we’re talking about one in particular.

The big, purple dinosaur would definitely not agree with the way the purple communal bikes available on campus are being treated.

Why the reference to a television show we each probably watched in Kindergarten? It’s a much-needed reminder that even though we are at an institution of higher learning, some of us have still not learned the simple lesson.

Why is it so difficult to treat objects given to us with care? We refuse to believe the brand-new cruisers distributed through OU Bike Share are so shoddily made that they fell apart in a matter of days.

Brett McIsaac, OU Student Congress Student Services Director, warns that what we have is all we’re going to get.

“If we buy 16 new bikes and they get destroyed, we are not going to replace them,” McIsaac said. “…Best thing to do is respect the bike.”

If they do break, don’t ditch them at the most convenient place — one bike was found in Beer Lake earlier this year. It’s unacceptable to not at least limp them to the nearest bike rack.

There are channels in place to maintain the bikes. Equipment failures can be reported to OU Bike Share at 248-370-4888.

When reporting, be sure to include the bike’s identifying number, which is located at the back, and its location.

If they are not broken, follow the simple rules given out by office of student affairs and the Oakland University Student Congress regarding bike care.

- Use of bicycles is limited to the Oakland University Main Campus

- Use of bicycles is at the risk of the individual

- Reckless behavior, unsafe speed or stunts are prohibited

- Destruction and abuse of bicycles is prohibited

- Bicycles should be parked in designated bike racks

- OU Bike Share equipment is available on a first come, first serve basis; equipment cannot be reserved

From what we’ve seen, campus — from the student apartments to Pawley Hall, and beyond — has been turned into an OU Bike Share graveyard, as the above photo illustrates.

So next time you ride an OU Bike Share bike, we ask that you not let it merely rest in pieces.

As a directly funded organization, The Oakland Post receives 7 percent of student activities funding each year. Other directly funded groups are the Oakland University Student Congress, Student Video Productions, WXOU Radio, club sports, the Student Life Lecture Board, and the Student Program Board. What’s left is split among other organizations by the Student Activities Funding Board.

While we can’t tell you exactly what happens to all of that money because it’s impossible to keep tabs on what every single campus organization is doing, we can tell you what we’re doing with our share. It’s time for a bit of shameless self-promotion.

Your money goes to help pay our staff of 30. That’s not figuring unpaid interns who also contribute to the task of creating this newspaper every week. We don’t have the most funding, but your dollars reach more student paychecks because of our status as the student organization with the largest staff.

We’ve been hard at work over the summer improving the product that you’re now reading, whether in print or online. Our goal is to give you the most for your money.

We want to represent OU in the best way, whether it’s by winning more awards on the state and national level, or by featuring the faces of OU’s best. Also, who doesn’t like more pictures and color?

We have been working tirelessly on the redesign of the newspaper since April and hope you enjoy the aesthetically pleasing new layout that provides for maximum readability. You’ll find that we’ll be featuring more campus organizations, teams and faces.

In this issue, pages 14 and 15 feature a guide to Kresge Library, a valuable campus resource. More campus guides are planned for the coming weeks. If you’re in a hurry, sidebars in every section give you a quick dose of news on the go. If you’re really in a hurry, you can scan headlines on our website or through our Twitter account at www.twitter.com/theoaklandpost.

Our website, www.oaklandpostonline.com, also has a new look in order to complete our design overhaul. There, you’ll find stories that have been in print as well as web exclusives and photos that didn’t make it into the paper.

Want to see more or less of something in your student newspaper? Let us know by sending an e-mail to oakposteditor@gmail.com. We work for you and you can also tell us how we’re doing via Twitter or Facebook at www.facebook.com/theoakpost.

In the end, we want to return that $1.75 each student gives to us each year. We strive to give it back to you in the form of a quality independent student newspaper you can enjoy.

This is your tuition at work. It does not go toward special interest projects because our interest lies in the campus community. That means everything we spend money on goes right back into the product, whether it be new computers to better produce the paper or the travel costs to a development conference, not an item only we can use.

Our newly redesigned newspaper says it all. We’d like to welcome back those returning to our campus community and wholly welcome those new to campus by helping you out as much as possible and letting you know that we are here in 61 Oakland Center.

Swing by to say hi, hang out for a bit and drink a cup of coffee, meet our staff or even join our staff. You’re always welcome.

In exchange for no pay, workers will complete tasks that, hopefully, will be beneficial to enhancing their future careers.

In addition to not getting paid, applicants have to compete with other eager college students for the opportunity. People go through all of this trouble just to improve their chances for employment.

Often, no room and board provided, so essentially what happens is that many students end up paying to work for free.

This creates an unlevel playing field in times of financial hardship. One that becomes especially apparent during an economic downturn, where many cannot afford to work for no pay, let alone pay for that experience.

Those who are unable to complete an internship may not be as appealing to employers as those who do. 

As a university, that would like to make its graduates as marketable as possible, it’s perhaps time for OU to step in and help.

Waive the fee for credits that are required for most unpaid internships so that students can have as much field experience as possible.

According to OU Career Services, “most companies now expect students to have at least one internship experience, preferably two.”

Internship coordinators argue that because unpaid internships provide a hands-on skill set not found in a classroom, they are giving away free education.

It becomes far from free when you figure in the amount of money spent on getting to the internship site, not to mention the possible loss of income by those who could be working at paying jobs.

Some internship seekers insist that there is absolutely no place for unpaid internships and that labor laws set in place things like minimum wage and maximum workable hours.

Ironically enough, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics does not have any statistics regarding this type of labor.

The New York Times spoke to people who were asked to complete assignments like cleaning and other tedious tasks that had no relevance to their career path. They felt that it was both a waste of time and resources. 

The Times business report explored the ethics of those practices and the legality of them.

States such as Oregon and California have taken steps toward advocating for change and the federal Labor Department is pushing more regulation, The Times reported.

Despite steps in a positive direction when it comes to legality, does that still make unpaid internships elitist? 

Certainly.

Maybe you think that people who choose to do this are stupid to do so much for what seems like so little return. Often times, though, it is not a choice.

Unpaid internship sites may offer college credit in exchange for work as an even agreement. However, those credits must be paid for.

For instance, many Oakland University degree programs require an internship be completed as either part of its degree requirements or as a program’s single capstone experience.

Programs that require this hands-on experience — or at least practically do — include journalism, elementary and secondary education, environmental science, human resource development and occupational safety and health.

Though there are paying internships are out there, most will require previous internship experience. 

Those experiences are non-paying and many sites will only give them to those in the position of being able to earn college credits.

So in order to have a competitive resume filled with internships, college students are probably likely to pay money somewhere down the line for it.

While it’s the reality of the current job situation, OU should not burden students with additional costs.

So instead, we decided to focus on something we might be able to do something about. 

A Michigan legislator is proposing that all journalists should be registered by the government so that news consumers will know which sources are credible. 

As a media publication – defined by the bill as “any electronic or written medium including, but not limited to, newspapers, television, radio, and internet” – The Oakland Post opposes the legislative measure because it would discredit the profession of journalism.

Michigan Senate Bill 1323 seeks to create “The Board of Michigan Registered Reporters,” not unlike governing boards for other industries that require registration such as accountancy, cosmetology, forestry and mortuary science. 

While there is nothing wrong with wanting competent service from a licensed professional, the bill runs into some problems when it defines what needs to be done in order to become a reporter.

In addition to paying a $10 registration fee, one must: “be of good moral character” and prove it by signing a statement acknowledging industry-wide ethics “acceptable to the board,” possess a degree in journalism or its equivalent, have more than three years of experience as a reporter, three writing samples and “awards or recognition that related to being a reporter.”

The measure is currently referred to the committee on economic development and regulatory reform.

While the legislation being proposed deems that reporters would voluntarily apply for recognition as a registered reporter, a larger issue with the blatant violation of the free speech and free press clauses of the First Amendment lies down the road.

Because “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” the government allowing only registered reporters to practice journalism does not make sense due to the fact that such licenses come at the whim of the aforementioned government. 

Who gets to determine what is “good moral character?”

Senator Bruce Patterson implies that reporters who do not meet the above criteria cannot be accurate and reliable in reporting. 

What would happen to student publications like this very newspaper? 

These voices have all of the necessary knowledge and tools to be reporters, but do not yet have an undergraduate degree and may not have the subjective “good moral character.”

Though some citizen journalists and bloggers may have ridiculously alternative views, alternative perspectives sometimes contribute to the discussion.

The problem of fulfilling the requirements for registration occurs for new journalists. 

How could someone who is not a registered reporter, someone who is not a legitimate journalist in the government’s eyes, possibly garner the awards and experience necessary?

Will there be an absurd learner’s permit system that allows novice journalists to report? 

As a staffer points out: the registration policy is akin to requiring a person to have an established voting record before the age of 18.

Patterson, whose bill has no cosponsors, wants to lessen the dissemination of misinformation, but he stifles the truth in his quest to promote it. 

What’s to say that the voluntary measure won’t turn into a mandatory Michigan law and extend as far as seeking official licensure for reporters?

As Patterson said, First Amendment rights come with “correlative and corresponding duties.” 

The industry already knows that it is its duty to seek and report the truth.

As reporters serve as the watchdogs of democracy, the right to print a story should not be determined by the very government that is being reported on.

Somehow we find ourselves approaching finals week, a revolving occasion that always seems so far away except for when it rears its head.

For about 2,000 Oakland University students, it’s our last, and it’s totally surreal.

Like a much shorter generation, the time we spend at OU fits into this little box chock full of experiences. It’s hard to gauge how significant our time here was compared to somebody else’s  maybe 20 years ago.

But at The Post, we think there’s sufficient evidence to say that these last couple of years have been pretty momentous.

These changes came because somebody before us made it possible. They built a platform for us to jump off.

We saw the ground breaking for improvements to the campus from the Human Health Building to the Grizzly Oaks disc golf course.

We partook in the highest voter turnout for student elections, electing a student body president and vice president with more votes than were cast last year total.

We suffered a 9 percent tuition increase to cover a significant change in our financial aid system.

We missed the first week of classes because of a faculty strike.

We watched as President Gary Russi was confronted with grievances and how he rose to respond to them. We’ve received more communication and inclusion from him and his office than ever. Not only as a community, but as members of the student media.

After covering his story for over a year, Micah Fialka-Feldman won his personal battle to live on campus, just in time for his last semester.

We cheered on the men’s basketball team all the way to the NCAA tournament.

To shamelessly plug ourselves, The Oakland Post dove into these stories. Because of that insane dedication to making the news something you want to read, The Post had its winningest year in statewide and national competitions.

We brought home three awards just from the Society of Professional Journalists on April 10, including second place for best all-around non-daily newspaper at a four-year university.

Last year we were third in that category. Next year, we hope to be first.

We come from a small, young school. We are not a superpower. But our reputation is increasingly gaining speed. All those important folks out there are starting to see the potential in OU’s graduates.

It’s the ones who have come before us who will give the line on our resume that says Oakland University that wow factor. It’s what they did while they were here, and what they continue to do out there.

For those graduating, it’s your turn to return the favor. To perpetuate that good name and pave a way for those who will follow behind, just as our student leaders have paved a way for students at OU.

Maybe we didn’t achieve everything we set out to do this year or last, on a personal level or as a university. But the climbs we made while we were here forecast a not too far from now future where it is very possible to surpass those goals.

For those staying on, it’s time to rise up. Take what is being left for you and continue to make this university a better place to learn, to become who you are.

Return the favor.

Student voting had a shaky start Monday morning.

Forty-one students cast their online ballots before a problem with the referendum regarding club sports funding was fixed.

The ballot question asked whether club sports should directly receive 5 percent of student activity fees. They currently receive about that same amount of money through the Student Activities Funding Board. In turn, the SAFB would receive 5 percent less of the fees. This was proposed originally by the SAFB and club sports.

What should have been a yes or no question, the referendum presented some of these first voters with three options from a 2008 student election about what the university should do with excess funds. If the referendum question wasn’t confusing enough, the completely unrelated options presented to some of the voters made it worse.

If this were any other game, everybody at the table would be screaming misdeal.

Even if the final count is one way or the other regardless of these 41 votes, there needs to be a re-vote.

Perhaps the reason why Oakland University Student Congress and the representatives from club sports don’t seem worried about this is because they assume they wouldn’t make a difference.

One OUSC member admits that he doesn’t think it would matter because students will vote yes for anything. In 2005 and 2006, similar yes/no questions regarding percent changes in funding for the direct-funded organizations were passed.

Every year, a committee of leaders from direct funded student organizations, including The Oakland Post, look at the appropriations of funding. This year, the committee took their own vote on whether or not the club sports issue should be presented for students to decide.

The Oakland Post, WXOU and Student Video Productions all voted against putting it on the ballot. While we can’t and don’t speak for other organizations or individuals, it makes sense that people might think the margin won’t be significant enough to have a re-vote.

Voters probably assume that something is on the ballot because it’s a good idea. It’s not as if there was a petition going around to get it on the ballot.

It’s not as if there was any more publicity for this change other than what The Post printed in a news story (that admittedly, not everybody reads).

One of the reasons The Post did not want this issue to be voted on by students at this point in time was because of the fact that there is very little knowledge of what club sports does or has available.

We believe the club sports representatives when they say the club sports council is working to remedy this lack of awareness, but shouldn’t that have been done before the students even voted?

Candidates for president and vice president were out in full force telling students what they stood for.

We expect the same from any group that is looking for us to pass anything in their favor.

This is the annual, obligatory “you should vote in the student congress elections” editorial.

But don’t just vote for your Oakland University Student Congress president and vice president because this editorial or somebody in the hallway next week solicits you to do so. If you’re going to be sticking around next year, and even if you’re not, please just take five minutes to get to know the people who are vying for the opportunity to represent you.

If you can make it, attend the debate on Wednesday, March 24 at noon in the Fireside Lounge.

The student body president and vice president aren’t simply a pair of students looking to get an extra line on their resume, or we hope not. They have real power and influence on student life and major decisions at the university. Particularly, the president and VP oversee the OUSC’s power to spend about $200,000 of tuition annually.

Student congress uses its share of tuition fees to provide “free” Scantrons, provide USA Today and New York Times in the Oakland Center, help sponsor trips to the state capitol and the NCAA tournament, and dozens of special projects thought up by members of congress, like the creation of the disc golf course on campus.

Members of each ticket hoping to win the upcoming election, being held March 29-31 online at oakland.edu/voteou, have different ideas on how to spend their time and the students’ money to improve OU.

Full details can be found in the center spread of this issue and also on The Oakland Post’s election page, oaklandpostonline.com/election-hq/.

On that page you will find a video of a candidate forum held in The Oakland Post’s office with all those running for president and vice president. Post editors fielded questions to the candidates. We were able to get a feel for what each ticket stands for, in case you don’t have the time to perform your own analysis.

Gustafson/Ring ticket

The Brandon Gustafson and Amy Ring ticket you have probably heard of. Their faces are plastered on banners all over the place. Their marketing strategies for their campaign mirror their proposed strategy as president and VP: To get the word out like crazy. They want to do more Facebook and banner advertising on campus for events.

They also want to have “Fireside Chats” on a weekly basis to meet with students and hear their concerns. Much like President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s radio addresses, these would foster a relationship between students and their representatives in OUSC.

Gustafson/Ring are fun candidates, and would be sure to bring the students some memorable and realistic changes, like a proposed quad for hanging out on hammocks outside and possibly a campus clock. They get along really well with each other and are sort of the every man’s ticket.

Schea/Diedrich ticket

The Cameron Schea and Mike Diedrich ticket is focused on creating a name brand for OUSC. They make a valid point that the student body only sees the free Scrantrons when it thinks of OUSC.

To expand OUSC’s image, they want to deliver large events that appeal to “everybody,” not the small or special-interest groups on campus.

While they have a few good ideas, like converting the Bear Bus into a safe-ride program and pushing to get the bookstore to be tax exempt, we question how realistic some of their other campaign promises are.

For example, they are pushing for stadium lighting and night sports games, which they said is to use as leverage for their SAE brother’s hopes for an OU football team.

They also want parking structures built, but that was found to be unnecessary and costly in a recent parking committee assessment. Diedrich mentioned at the debate Tuesday that students are “pissed” about tuition, but that’s how we would pay for such grandiose ideas proposed by the ticket.

Schea also said that the current student body administration has been ineffective, yet as a current legislator he is part of it.

Waquad/DeSanto ticket

The Saman Waquad and Laura DeSanto ticket definitely has the advantage of incumbency and experience, as Waquad is current student body vice president. She also has the most OUSC experience of any of the candidates.

DeSanto is new to OUSC, but as a commuter offers fresh ideas and perspectives, like reaching out to professors  to create an incentives program that would match class subjects with campus events and students could receive extra credit for attending.

The Waquad/DeSanto ticket is running on a platform that mirrors the overall goal of higher education: to work toward making OU students more well-rounded, helping them become more marketable for jobs when graduating.

They also want to reevaluate the inner workings of OUSC, and make sure that everyone on staff there is held accountable for the responsibilities given to them.

While The Post has decided not to endorse a ticket, we urge you to make whatever effort you can to get to know these candidates.

It counts.

Can we take a vote to not have a “vote of no confidence”?

The Post has been covering this saga from its inception during the contentious contract negotiations, “strike,” salary freeze/executive raises, and up through the second faculty forum with President Gary Russi.

As next week’s vote of no confidence against the president finally approaches, we urge the organizers to just stop it.

Cancel the thing. Put the kibosh on it.

Get on with finding and implementing solutions to Oakland University’s problems as opposed to perpetuating them and creating more.

This is such a poor representation of the university, and unfortunately, because of the way our media works, it’s going to be an image that burns bright for at least one news cycle.

What will a vote of no confidence do to the credibility fought for by our professors, the donations, the mindset of students, the lawmakers who decide how much funding we should get?

It’s not as if a majority vote expressing a lack of confidence in Russi has any official weight. So best case scenario for those in favor of it is that they prove a point.

We heard you already, loud and clear for the last year. We reported on your efforts to make a variety of much needed changes, like swifter software purchasing, equality for the LGBTQ community, transparency, and explanation about executive raises.

The vote was originally planned for November, but was postponed to supposedly let Russi make good on these grievances against him.

But if the hold-off was to give him time to try and address these issues, then why in January did the organizers of the vote say it will take place unless Russi resigns first. Logic begs the question, what is the true motivation behind this vote?

Since the first forum last fall, there have been a number of things done to work away at the long laundry list of “particulars.” Nearly every one of those items that he has in his power to fix as the president, he has initiated.

He has pledged his $100,000 raise as a donation back to the university, he has kept updates of the meetings he scheduled and committees created to work away at these issues and logged all this information on oakland.edu/thepoint.

These actions speak very clearly that Russi has worked overtime to try to satisfy these demands. Of course they haven’t all been fixed. And they probably all won’t be. The Post still can’t find the LCME documents that are supposed to be in the library.

We still don’t have a faculty liaison to the board. Russi has met with board members to discuss this, but it is really not in his power at all to implement that. It’s something the board of trustees has to do itself, and they have expressed no interest in it.

The buck has to stop somewhere, but you know it changes a lot of hands before it ever reaches the person who runs any organization. Especially in light of the sign of good faith from the president’s office, there is hardly reason enough to continue on with this vote.

It’s unfair to the president and to the thousands of stakeholders in this university to expect that trying to remove a leader who has generated a lot of good will lead to something better. No evidence has even been presented to support that case.

What’s the point in a call to action that measures somebody’s approval rating when the very people at the root of the vote seem to have made up their minds a long time ago.

Why vote at all if regardless of the outcome, all we are going to be left with is a bad reputation, no real solutions, and no leaders.