I was happy to see The Oakland Post’s quick response to the tuition increase the Board of Trustee’s approved. I hope the Post continues to fight for transparency, and also keeps the public updated on whether or not President’s Hynd’s “strategic plan” follows through. Kayla Varicalli’s article was a good introduction to the the tuition hike, how it will effect OU’s rankings, and also how much it will cost individual students. 

I do wonder why John Beaghan, Oakland CFO used a statistic for 1972. While I couldn’t find a statistic for 1972, or specifically for Oakland University, The National Center for Education Statistics listed total tuition and board for 4-year universities in 1976 as $2,275. Here’s the link for the chart: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_320.asp

Perhaps, (and I truly hope The Post will continue to question the tuition hike and its’ benefits) there will be further inquiry to the BOT and other OU officials to explain why universities in general continue to hike their tuition. 

And, as happy as I was to see the articles about the tuition hike I was just as disappointed to see ANOTHER article about the infamous Chick-Fil-A. Especially, after the LAST article was met with such negativity. Hosting one of the only Chick-Fil-A’s in the State certainly brings people to campus (I have had my far share of “where is Chick-Fil-A” questions), but to continue promoting it in such a way is disappointing. It is a fast food chain. Printing articles like these promote the idea that Chick-Fil-A is an asset (in some way) to Oakland University. Sure, we draw a handful of “chikin” (as the article title said) hungry non-OU individuals to campus every year, but is it really something to write about? Shouldn’t we, as an educational institution, look to promote….Oakland University? And not the corporations who rent out our food space? Shouldn’t we be concerned that people come to our university for “chikin” rather than anything the university has to offer? As we just here to promote Chick-Fil-A? 

Lastly, what might be considered a small complaint, but in my mind is a very distinct mistake is in Rachel William’s “Queer Peers at OU strengthens and unites.” The first sentence states that figures like “…Caitlyn Jenner and actress Laverne Cox has increased awareness of those who do not fit into a normalized heterosexual orientation.” Gender should not be confused with sexuality. Jenner and Cox are fighting for public awareness and support for transgender issues. A “heterosexual orientation” refers to sexuality, not gender. Jenner has even spoken out, in the interview with Diane Sawyer, against conflating the two identities. Whenever Sawyer pushed in Jenner to talk about sexual orientation, Jenner tried to side step the issue because the interview was supposed to be about gender transition, not sexual orientation. 

Sincerely, 

Rhianna Marks 

2015 Graduate of Oakland University