Would you spend $20,000 on a text message? Tomorrow, you will have the opportunity to vote on whether or not the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate will allocate that amount for the creation of a text−messaging system. But before you vote on Referendum 1, you'll want to ask yourself a few questions: Do we need it? Would it work? And would it be worth it?
We're talking about purchasing the ability for students to receive text−message updates from TuftsLife. At first, that doesn't sound so bad. After all, who doesn't want to stay informed? Then again, TuftsLife is already accessible through any device with Internet access. Any student within walking distance of the Tisch Library or Eaton Computer Lab, then, already has access to all of this information. So this service only becomes useful for Jumbos with no data plan, no iPod and no laptop... but an unlimited texting plan. Without unlimited text messaging, every message to and from TuftsLife will come with an added cost.
Suppose, then, that you fall into this demographic, and you want to get texts. The fact is systems are already in place that you can use for free. Interested in the latest menu from Tufts Dining Services? Sign up for texts through their Twitter page. It's free. Want reminders for upcoming events? Your Google Calendar or iCal would be happy to send those along. It's free. Concerned about campus safety? The Tufts University Police Department already uses Send Word Now to text, email and call all students in the case of an emergency. It's free, too. These services already exist, and they don't cost the community anything.
In our discussion so far, we've been assuming that the proposed "SMS short code" program would, if purchased, properly function as a tool for Tufts students. It is important to note, however, that such a system has yet to be tested on this campus. Not only may we find that it is not needed, but it may very well fail to properly interact with users. Attempting to communicate your precise request with an automated system unlikely to understand what you need would become a messy and convoluted process, especially over text message. Getting the right data about the right meeting on the right day could prove impossible.
Surely, then, a trial of the system would be needed. But here's the problem: That "trial" is a 12−monthnon−refundable $20,000 deposit. They're not getting us a free test−run or a small focus group; they're looking to purchase a campus−wide plan at full price.
So let's look at the price tag. It may be hard to tell how significant $20,000 is to the TCU, but think of it this way: $20,000 covers the entire cost of Tuftonia's Day, three separate student publications or two years' worth of Tufts Dance Collective shows. It's over a 1,000−percent increase in the budget for TuftsLife and almost four times the funding Relay for Life receives; all of this for some texts?
Instead, consider the programs Senate has supported in the past with these funds. The creation of the Tufts Bikes program, renovations for the Crafts Center and new vans for the Leonard Carmichael Society, Tufts Mountain Club and Tier II club sports all came from this grant process. For $20,000, couldn't we do better than a texting service?
And that's not the only cost. While Referendum 1 calls for a "one−time" payment, that money only covers the cost of this year. The system will incur similar fees every year afterward. That money will either come out of our funds year after year, or, as the proponents suggest, they will "start charging organizations a per−message fee when they send SMSes to distribution lists using this service." A portion of every club budget on campus would have to be set aside each year to fund the texting program. That means lower working budgets for everyone.
The question remains: Would you spend $20,000 on a text message? If we needed it, we would consider whether or not it would work. If we determined it would work, we would consider whether or not it was worth the cost. And if we determined it was worth the cost, then we would be willing to sacrifice those funds. But we can see that this service provides nothing "groundbreaking," may not even function, and has hidden costs beyond the enormous initial expense. At best, a text−messaging system is redundant. At worst, it arrives broken. Either way, it costs $20,000 a year.
Last year, the Senate voted overwhelmingly against this purchase, 6−13−1. On Tuesday we, the student body, will face the same choice. Do we want our money available for new programs, renovations, and organizations, or do we want to blow it all on a text message?
--
