Dear Editor,
I want to express my disappointment that the Daily's Nov. 12 article "Senate denies funds for public editor" and related editorial showed little sympathy toward the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate for choosing the fiscally and morally sound position relative to paying student stipends with the Student Activities Fee.
At the risk of sounding hypocritical (having served as TCU treasurer last year, a position with a not-insignificant TCU-funded stipend), I think that generally speaking students should not be paid to participate in student activities. Some senators, including those who are now the current public editor and Media Advocacy Board (MAB) chair, made this very argument last year in their (successful) efforts to reduce the stipends for the TCU president and treasurer, even though these positions are more akin to full-time jobs than extracurricular activities.
The Daily's editorial correctly argues that the ombudsman position at major national newspapers is paid, but so is every other columnist and staff person on a major publication. There are other student organizations that budget stipends in varying amounts for certain positions, and many (but not all) of those are as misguided as paying the public editor.
While I understand the MAB's argument to pay the public editor, if the public editor needs to be paid in order to be effective, then the MAB and the Senate really should be discussing the merits of the position itself, one year of precedent notwithstanding. That being said, I strongly believe in the need for the public editor itself to "referee" media on campus. I am disheartened to hear that Duncan Pickard, who is uniquely qualified for the job, will not be continuing in that role next semester.
Sincerely,
Matthew Shapanka, LA '09
TCU Treasurer, 2008-2009
