UWM Post endorses ASAP
Questionable decisions of the past year demand change
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
It is rare for the UWM Post, its editors or its writers to make a particular endorsement for any political purpose, be it a national, state or local election. It’s certainly a rarity for the Post to make an outright endorsement for any individual political party running for student government. This spring, however, given certain elements of this year’s election, we feel it behooves us to make such an endorsement.
In recent years, the Student Association (SA) has been the laughingstock of student governments within the UW System. The SA rarely receives positive news coverage when discussed within newspapers like the Journal Sentinel or even the Post. That lack of positive news coverage is not the fault of the news media, but rather the student government itself.
Embezzlement charges and racial tensions are some of the past problems that have faced the SA before the current administration took control. However, despite new leadership, controversy remains a problem within the SA.
We do not find fault with the system, but rather with those running the system. Students United For Change (SUFC), the political party that has run the SA since last summer, has taken the University Wisconsin-Milwaukee for quite a ride this past year.
Claiming to represent the UWM student body, SUFC has proposed cuts to many minority-student resource centers. It has also pushed for legislation that would ban slanderous or libelous publications against the SA, allowing the governing body the right to sue any publication it deemed to be committing such acts. The right to voice dissent against a governing body, whether libelous or not, and the right to publish material relating to the appalling actions of that body, is a constitutional right that the SA has no right to ban.
As journalists, this legislation was something we didn’t deal lightly with. Naturally, we reported the issue, bringing it to light for the students of UWM.
Of course, as with all articles that place the SA in a negative light, we received sharp criticism from members of SUFC and their allies. We realize that such criticism is warranted, and welcome it as a necessary part of the discourse we need within our university.
We do, however, have the right to publish what we feel about certain issues within the editorial section. Doing so does not make us a “biased” paper; the personal “biases” of our staff do not affect the integrity of our news division.
Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, and despite the criticisms we will undoubtedly receive due to the article you are now reading, we feel it’s prudent to publish our thoughts on the current election, including our thoughts on who we feel should receive your votes.
We support Achieving Student Action through Progress (ASAP) in this year’s SA elections. We do so for various reasons; these range from their stances on issues important to students at UWM to the fact that we feel it’s time for a fresh change in our student government.
We agree with their progressive nature, and feel that presidential candidate Scott Dettman and his vice presidential running mate Julio Guerrero would make excellent leaders. We also feel that the party would be open to student concerns and that ASAP would be more representative of the student body than SUFC.
The continuing problems with the current incarnation of the SA only enhance our endorsement of ASAP. The SUFC claims that it is the choice for “mainstream” students. Yet the actions it has taken have been anything but mainstream.
The student body voiced its anger over prospects of cutting funding for student resource centers, a proposal made by SUFC. Several student groups voiced concern over the attempts to stifle criticism through the SA Senate’s passage of the Sedition Act, a bill that was written by an SUFC senator and passed by an SUFC senate. And, as was the case last year, questions about the loyalties of the Independent Elections Commissioner have been raised, as Dan Bahr was an ardent campaigner for SUFC in April 2007.
Bahr’s penalization of ASAP this year has been done under questionable terms, as he handed out demerit points to the party based on election laws that banned preliminary campaigning. This “campaigning” was done by writers of blogs and writers of newspapers who were not even affiliated with ASAP.
We do not mean to say that ASAP is the perfect party. Our endorsement of them comes with a caveat: that we will stay on top of their actions just as we have with SUFC during their tenure in office. We don’t assume that the actions or legislation of ASAP will be perfect or without fault. We do have knowledge, however, of SUFC’s performance, of their impeccable desire to deride students’ rights, to limit the funds of student organizations while cutting back little on their own. For these reasons, we endorse the Achieving Student Action through Progress party, as well as their presidential candidate Scott Dettman and their vice-presidential candidate Julio Guerrero.
> Comments
VPN on Apr 14, 2008 at 11:47 AM:
So much for unbiased journalism.
Unknown Soldier on Apr 14, 2008 at 12:10 PM:
Yeah! It's not like this showed up in the editorial section or anything!
Journalism Major on Apr 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM:
Every professional newspaper endorses during elections.
UWM Alum on Apr 14, 2008 at 01:33 PM:
After being on campus for many years, I did not think an SA election could actually surprise me--I'll tell you, the hype around this election in nothing different. There have been some CRAZY elections - MKE beating RAVE, USV beating MKE...this election is nothing new. However; this does seem to be something new. I have never seen the UWM Post endorse a single party. I hope you guys realize the precedent you are setting. Many people before you have spent many hard earned hours building the UWM Post into the newspaper it is today. You are carrying on a legacy that has been going on for decades. I suggest you think twice about the things you're doing. You're running this newspaper into the ground. UWM Post- do not get caught up in this election and ruin your hard earned credibility. This election is nothing new. I guarantee you that elections in the past have been much crazier!
Johanan Raatz on Apr 14, 2008 at 01:39 PM:
"So much for unbiased journalism."
Well I personally endorce SUFC but this is the editorial section so bias appropriate in this area.
RS on Apr 14, 2008 at 02:51 PM:
As if anyone cares who the Post tells them to vote for.
Hey UWM Post on Apr 14, 2008 at 03:11 PM:
Why not just report the facts and let people decide???
Chris Walker on Apr 14, 2008 at 04:04 PM:
The hours spent by those who came before us are much appreciated; we are grateful that such jobs on campus exist, that we can perform a service to the students of UWM by informing them of events, persons or groups coming to campus, elections, musical acts coming to Milwaukee, etc – all the things that are important to student life. At the same time, we don’t take this job lightly: we have a responsibility to inform students about what’s going on, and when questionable things happen we report on it.
The Post hasn’t endorsed a candidate or party before, that much is true; but we felt the circumstances surrounding this election warranted an endorsement. We reserve the right to make such an endorsement, as all newspapers do so in major elections. We had compelling reasons for endorsing ASAP, among them the disturbing legislation the SA had attempted to pass in the past year under SUFC leadership.
We feel that we’re taking the Post in a good direction; distribution is up and the content is engaging students in a conversation they have been in desperate need of having. If anything, our endorsement gets students talking, either in a positive (in that students agree with us) or negative (with students disagreeing with our views) way. This gets students talking about SA politics, which causes them to talk to their friends about it, which engages more student participation. How is that bad?
I have to disagree with you, then, when you say that we’re “running this newspaper into the ground.” Are we pushing students away? I don’t think so; in my day as a reader, not a writer, I would read the Post religiously despite the (then) editorial section being full of conservative writers. The editorial section of yesterday is what prompted me to become an editorial writer, to engage myself in the discourse of campus politics.
We’re hoping that people will read our endorsement with the intent to vote ASAP, but even if our endorsement causes people to get informed and vote the other way, we will be doing a service to UWM students by getting them involved. In the end, that’s the duty of the “fourth estate.” You’re welcomed to disagree, of course...but expect responses from myself and others when we’re criticized.
Praise For Post on Apr 14, 2008 at 05:18 PM:
Thank you POST for calling out SUFC as they continue to stifle students. You just have to look at the previous posts on other articles, obviously from SUFC leaders, and see their name calling for any student that disagrees with them or questions their behavior. SUFC throws around "mainstream", but what about the students that aren't considered "mainstream"? Doesn't our SA have an obligation to represent ALL students. We can only hope that this election remains fair so we can see leaders elected that represent and RESPECT all students. Even those of us that aren't considered "mainstream".
john on Apr 14, 2008 at 06:56 PM:
Your right, newspapers do endorse candidates, and when they do, they become biased. the uwm post has not published one good article about sufc or sa this year. there is so much that each group [sufc and sa] has accomplished that was in the best interest of students, however the uwm post continues to write on a biased platform.
Jeff on Apr 14, 2008 at 06:58 PM:
Wait, didn't President Grover veto the sedition act? Isn't Grover a member of SUFC? Doesn't that show how well our checks and balances system works? Does the post and everyone attacking the act not know anything about how government operates? The conclusion is the act DID NOT PASS and thats all that matters. If it would have passed, that would have been a different story.
Mike Longman on Apr 14, 2008 at 06:59 PM:
ASAP are crazies.
Jer in Mike on Apr 14, 2008 at 09:13 PM:
SUFC are fascist, neurotic fuckups
Mike T on Apr 14, 2008 at 09:53 PM:
If you were to keep up on the news, Grover did veto the Sedition Act, only after it got national attention for being very illegal. Don't believe me? Here is a direct pull and quotes:
>The big-name sponsors Ohler referenced were Sens. A.J. Piwarun, Tyler Draheim and Tyler Kristopeit. Piwarun is the President of SRG and Draheim is the Vice President. During last Sunday’s Senate meeting, Draheim praised the act.
>“This is great legislation,” Draheim said. “Joe wrote it with the best intent.” Piwarun said he agreed.
>“I agree with Sen. Draheim,” Piwarun said. “If certain newspapers print lies about Student Association members and it’s slander, this is a matter to combat that.”
http://www.uwmpost.com/article/52/20/3131--Unconstitutional-on-its-face-
They were clearly acting specifically against the post and against free speech. To quote Adam Goldstein, attorney for the SPLC:
“Anyone who doesn’t see there’s a problem with the Sedition Act shouldn’t be in government, or student government.”
Jim Bob on Apr 15, 2008 at 05:38 AM:
Jer in Mike clearly doesn't know what a fascist is... and I know the presidential and vice presidential candidates for ASAP and they aren't crazy.
The Post has published some good things about the SA and the SUFC, but they have been written by the few contributors of the editorial section that aren't politically misguided sycophants.
Walker isn't one of those. While I don't necessarily agree with his politics, they aren't misguided. He is of course correct in saying that just because a paper endorses a candidate (or party) doesn't mean the paper loses all credibility. In fact, it makes the paper better to read. It forced the reader to draw an opinion. I agree also that it will bring more students to vote on Thursday and Friday because the Post went out and said "Hey, on Thursday and Friday, we like the ASAP."
Call me crazy... but didn't the SUFC win last year by a complete land slide? So if you sit and whine about the SUFC "stifling students" then you either don't know anything about the SUFC outside of what is written in the Post, or you didn't vote last year, making your opinion basically pointless (if you didn't vote, you have no right to complain) OR you are a freshman and are deluded by the various groups on campus that paint the SUFC as anti-gay, anti-women, anti-minority, etc etc.
The sedition act was written by Joe Ohler and it was originally supposed to prevent the Post and other news outlets from publishing stories that have ZERO factual basis, but are written as such. However, it was warped when the Post found out about it to make it sound like it was made like the Gestapo, trying to squash free speech. Grover did veto it, so it's really a non-issue.
I can't believe anyone is surprised by this... a college media outlet supporting a liberally slanted student political party? Call Ripley's!
Sedition is sedition on Apr 15, 2008 at 08:55 AM:
Which stories are you referencing that had zero factual basis? It had better not be the SRG stories, because gasp almost everything printed was corroborated the VERY next week by none other than A.J. Piwarun and Tyler Draheim, the very people the story was about.
The Sedition Act a non-issue? No warping was necessary to make this act sound unconstitutional. I think this is obvious by the fact it was CONDEMNED outright by media law professors at UWM and Marquette, as well as by the Student Press Law Center and the ACLU.
You're right, Grover was against the Sedition Act from the start. Unfortunately, that didn't stop it from passing the senate by a comfortable majority of SEVEN people. Let me re-phrase: the unconstitutional Sedition Act was passed by a wide margin in an SUFC led and dominated senate body.
Here's the real significance: not only was it written by a member of SUFC (Ohler) but it was loudly and proudly endorsed by only the most prominent of SUFC members... current presidential candidate Tyler Draheim, A.J. Piwarun and Tyler Kristopeit. Only after negative national media attention did two of the three sponsors pull their sponsorship.
Yes, Grover didn't support the Sedition Act, but Grover isn't running for president... Tyler Draheim is. Please, UWM, don't vote for a president who vocalized how much he thought the unconstitutional Sedition Act was "great legislation."
Johanan Raatz on Apr 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM:
"Yes, Grover didn't support the Sedition Act, but Grover isn't running for president... Tyler Draheim is."
Remind me to vote for Draheim. :)
Johanan on Apr 15, 2008 at 10:24 AM:
Just kidding on my last post there. If I do vote for him it won't be because of the Sedition Act.
RE: johanan on Apr 15, 2008 at 07:51 PM:
Draheim was a cosponsor. That's a FACT.
Jim Bob on Apr 15, 2008 at 07:52 PM:
I'm still voting SUFC. I still think that campus safety and security is 100000000000 times more important than funding for groups so that they can pay staff that shouldn't be paid out of the students pockets anyway.
Also, considering less than 2% of the campus population actually USES those resources says a lot, when nearly 100% (I say nearly because I know people take classes online) of the campus population uses some form of the campus every day and needs to be protected. SUFC has done that.
and if you blame the recent crime outbreaks on the SUFC, you are dumber than you sound. that's like blaming Katrina on Bush.
at jim bob on Apr 15, 2008 at 09:26 PM:
"I'm still voting SUFC. I still think that campus safety and security is 100000000000 times more important than funding for groups so that they can pay staff that shouldn't be paid out of the students pockets anyway." So why would you vote for a party that has excessive staff positions in the SA that is eating up students money and then giving themselves raises at the same meeting that they slashed funding for student orgs? That seems fair. On top of that spending excessive amounts for a trip that came out of the student's pocket. Sounds like you are a bit confused buddy. I am I to understand that you are saying it is okay to have exess postions as long as it is a SUFC SA and that it's okay to waste money as long as it is SUFC>?
FACT on Apr 16, 2008 at 01:10 AM:
One of those "excessive staff positions" you talk about was held by Scott Dettman. Looks like Dettman directly contributed to the excessive waste.
Also, having paid positions in the SA allows for the workers to devote much more time to students. Without the paid positions, the officers would have to take on another one or two jobs just to be able to afford school. If they were simply volunteers, they wouldn't be able to devote even half of the time they do to student issues. SUFC has already eliminated unnecessary positions (like Dettman's previous position) and will continue to do so in the future.
@FACT on Apr 16, 2008 at 05:04 AM:
Right, what about the raise? You have no comment on that. I am all for the removal or positions of excess in the government, but SUFC still has secretaries etc. Still wasting 12k on trips, where are your answers for that? Specifically the self granted raise, while cutting student funding the same day?
$ly$py on Apr 16, 2008 at 03:33 PM:
Well, you maybe surprised to find out that myself (and a few nameless others) are running for senator positions in SUFC...but we support ASAP ideals and plan to uphold them!
From the $ly$py
great! on Apr 16, 2008 at 04:06 PM:
SUFC prides itself on having a very diverse group and senate. This will bring some thought provoking debate in senate next year and I totally excited about it! SUFC, the party that encourages all thoughts and ideas!
VOTE SUFC!!!
UWM's SGA is a Joke on Apr 16, 2008 at 04:27 PM:
"SUFC prides itself on having a very diverse group and senate. This will bring some thought provoking debate in senate next year and I totally excited about it! SUFC, the party that encourages all thoughts and ideas!
VOTE SUFC!!!"
Joke Comment
$ly$py on Apr 16, 2008 at 04:38 PM:
I agree next year shall be very very interesting after we win the vote.
$ly$py
Hector Jiminez on Apr 16, 2008 at 06:25 PM:
ASAP Rocks!!
bor ogrver on Apr 16, 2008 at 09:32 PM:
Dan Bahr can lick my nuts
UWM Alumette on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:13 PM:
Journalism Major on Apr 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM:
"Every professional newspaper endorses during elections." From what I've seen in the Post this year, I wouldn't exactly be using the words professional and journalism in the same sentence.
ACLU = JOKE on Apr 18, 2008 at 08:57 AM:
ACLU = JOKE
Advice to Dishonest SUFC on Apr 18, 2008 at 11:38 AM:
Please don't use the student funds to pay for your attorneys. lol. . .lol
Who Needs Attorneys? on Apr 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM:
Why would they need an attorney?
Hugh G. Rection on Apr 19, 2008 at 07:02 AM:
LMAO * The really great thing is, SUC(K) and a-SAP staged this whole thing...The leaders of both factions are Skull-and-Bones Illuminati.
Dissapointed on Apr 19, 2008 at 06:48 PM:
Both sides of this election are just unbelievable right now. All this divisive crap just divides students more and more and leads to a lot of other students to just not care. This entire election was about what side claimed the other side was doing...not about the issues.
Election Do Over Needed on Apr 20, 2008 at 11:38 AM:
Unfortunately all the dictatorship stemming from the election rules, did not allow the parties to spend time focusing on the issues. They had to spend all their time trying to stay on the ballot. We need an election with 2 parties on the ballot. Where's students choice?