By Najib Aminy

How does Gov. Paterson differentiate a red apple from a green one? By biting into it.

For the first time in its history, the SUNY Student Assembly voted in support of an increased tuition to alleviate the ongoing budget crisis plaguing New York State and SUNY. Under the supported plan, tuition would increase every year in proportion to the monetary state of each university, allowing students to predict their financial situation. However, under this plan, students are left vulnerable to an additional hike, due in part to unforeseen circumstances, surmounting additional money to the proposed rational plan. Representing the 427,000 students enrolled in SUNY in both the national and state level, the Student Assembly voted, 50-10, in favor of a rational tuition hike leaving many students scratching their heads.

“Obviously they are not paying their own tuition,” said Jill Craver, a Stony Brook junior, who feels misrepresented. “They could have more dialogue between the students, I feel this will become a financial strain for many people.”

Junior Alyson Schwartz said that any tuition hike at all is unfair to anyone without student loans. “If anything, New York State should increase the amount they give on financial aid.” Junior Danny DeVita works two jobs to pay off his school tuition and when hearing about the SA’s recent vote, he was not happy about it. Feeling that he was never asked about the issue, DeVita said, “I wished they consulted with students more before making their decision.”

“I think it is bullshit, the students in the SA are idiots,” said Michael Dischley, a sophomore from SUNY Geneseo. Dischley said the most attractive thing about SUNY is that it is cheap and affordable. “If you increase the price it becomes less appealing,” said Dischley. On the other hand, Ryan Micelli, a junior at SUNY Binghamton, said he thinks the SA’s decision is for the best. “SUNY still is pretty cheap, my brother goes to Cornell and it is really expensive, but it’s practically like getting the same education.” An optimistic Vincent Lancia, a sophomore at SUNY Albany, sees the rational tuition plan as unfair for students in need of financial aid. “A lot of kids that go to SUNY come based on the financial aid and grants, and to boost tuition would place economic strain on them,” said Lancia. Though a bit optimistic, Lancia sees a hike as a long term answer to a short term problem.

An undergraduate himself here at Stony Brook, Treasurer of the Student Assembly Joe Antonelli was amongst the fifty voting in favor of the rational tuition hike. “Costs go up—there really is no other justification. Just like the cost of groceries go up each year, just like the cost of buying a car goes up each year, so to does the cost of running a University,” said Antonelli. With the SUNY experiencing two significant cuts and looking to face another after November 18, when Governor Paterson convenes with the legislature, Antonelli says that a “rational plan would not be effective, but it would be the solution.” According to Antonelli, the plan that the SUNY SA voted on would have students paying the same percent it costs for their university to run, whether an increase or decrease in the amount. For example, if operations to run Stony Brook increased five percent, students would pay five percent, if operations decreased to run Stony Brook by five percent, students would pay a tuition five percent less than what they originally had.

Voting against the rational hike, Lynne Radle, an Undergrad at SUNY Buffalo, said that the “elected delegates didn’t even consider their constituents. Very few people asked members of their campus how they felt, and the ones who did got a resounding ‘no tuition hikes!’” Radle said that there were no other alternative plans proposed at the table. Rational tuition was proposed to the SUNY delegates, according to Radle, as a decision between whether they were in favor of a 30 percent increase or a three percent increase.
With the absence of a binding legislation, a rational tuition plan could be scrapped as soon as next year or the year after under a new and different legislature. “I believe it is based on false hope, and would rather stand behind a strong message like adequately funding SUNY,” said Radle.

"Mine is this big"

With Governor Paterson projecting a $2.5 billion shortfall in the 2008-09 fiscal year, ending March 31, cuts to SUNY are being forecasted as Deans are preparing “for the worst case scenario,” according to Dan Meluci, Associate Vice President for Strategy and Analysis. With unemployment problems, debt related issues, and mortgage situations, Melucci says it “is going to be very difficult for the legislature to impose a 20 percent increase on students in this state,” but has not ruled it out as an option. Though in support of a rational plan, during his thirty-five years at Stony Brook Melucci has never experienced a rational tuition hike and sees some downfall to the plan. “In difficult budgetary times, the legislature may see SUNY getting a tuition increase so they cut SUNY’s state side budget. All you would be doing would be shifting the burden from tax payers to families, and SUNY would get no more money.” Melucci feels that entrusting more power within the Board of Trustees would be an alternative route to travel disembarking from the political atmosphere involved in SUNY higher education. In terms of Stony Brook going private, Melucci immediately responded, “not going to happen. The state is really valuable They pay all the debt services on our buildings, all the fringe benefits on state employees, that’s huge amount of money, we can’t give that up.”

With a history of SUNY raising tuition by a significant percent in blocks of time, it has become difficult for students and their families to predict how to pay for their education. It doesn’t help that the New York State economy runs on 20 percent of Wall Streets fortunes, and more recently, mishaps.  Stony Brook Provost Eric Kaler added that the plan voted by the SA is “a very realistic interpretation of the current situation. I think it is unrealistic to look at today’s economy and expect somehow the state will provide the money needed to run the university without students to take on the larger share.” The University runs on income provided by state aid and tuition. According to Kaler, if state aid continues to dwindle and tuition is unchanged, the lack of cash flow into the University will stall and deter the quality and goals of the University. Provost Kaler asked for students to be patient and aware of their schedules and course offerings and make it sufficient to the progress of their own degree. Though optimistic, Kaler knows little of what will happen in the near future. “Like the rest of the nation we are facing an unprecedented economic change. We are trying to plan on minimal information, which changes very rapidly.”

Whether or not rational tuition policy gets voted on by the New York Legislature, the biggest flaw to this policy is its precedent. According to Andrew Morrison, regional director of the New York Public Interest Group, by supporting a rational tuition policy, one is opening the door to rational increases as well as continued susceptibility to 20 to 30 percent increases, as Stony Brook has experienced in the past. “This happens because you can’t hold a legislature to this policy and you won’t know what will happen in the near future,” said Morrison, adding, “its based on an empty promise.” Morrison said, “rather than taking the SA’s stance and say that students are willing to do their part for NYS, that state should be doing everything in its power to do what is right for its students.” Morrison views the cause of this problem in looking at the SUNY institution as a business. “Students are not meant to be consumers of education as if NYS is offering them a service, it is students who are doing NYS the service,” said Morrison.

Due to the current economic state, Antonelli said that it would be infeasible to keep tuition the same. “The mere thought of that was not even on the table for SUNY, and it would have proven ignorant for us to continue insisting that SUNY quality could remain the same as costs rise while keeping our tuition static.” With the significant majority, Antonelli said that “SUNY students have never been more united on the cost of their education.” Expressing her concern over the SA’s decision, Radle said, “It is really hard to hear support for tuition increases from adults, but from students? That’s a shame.”

By Alex Nagler

The New York City Council voted on Thursday, October 22 to extend term limits for elected officials to three terms from two, clearing the path for Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run again. The vote was 29 in favor of extending, with 22 votes in opposition. Prior to this, the issue of whether or not to put the question of term limits on the ballot for citizens to decide was put up to vote. Here, the vote was 28 no, 22 yes, and one abstention.

This term limit extension is a blanket increase, adding a third four-year term to everyone from the mayor to the 51 members of the City Council. This also includes the two other positions in the executive branch of the city’s municipal government, the public Advocate and the comptroller. The Public Advocate, Betsy Gotbaum, has not expressed any intention to enter the race. Her duties presiding over the City Council gave her the task of delivering the final vote count, though she was later quoted as being “disappointed” and expressed her feelings that “the voice of New Yorkers has been silenced and millions of votes ignored.”

The comptroller is a different story. William Thompson Jr., comptroller, has stated his opposition to extending term limits for some time now, but a good deal of that has much to do with the fact that he is currently one of the leading contenders for mayor in 2009. In his statement, he condemned the action calling the vote, “An affront to New Yorkers.” He continued, “It says that their votes and their voice do not matter, that bullying and heavy-handed threats are more powerful than democratic ideals.”

Though not in the City Council, Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) stated that he is still running for mayor, commenting on the fact that Council Speaker Christine Quinn called off her campaign in response to the vote. Quinn, who represents Manhattan’s third district and voted in favor of extending term limits, would be unable to run for her seat and maintain the position of speaker in 2009 without an extension. The story is the same for 22 of the other “Yes” voters, who are now eligible to run for a third term thanks to their decision. Of those who voted “no,” only twelve of them would be ineligible to run for a third term. Whether or not each individual council member, regardless of how they voted, plan to run for their newly minted third term remains to be seen.

Much of the controversy surrounding the vote comes from a Quinnipiac University poll that showed that 89 percent of those surveyed favored a referendum on whether or not to allow the Mayor to run for a third term, with 51 percent of those who responded opposing said referendum, yet 75 percent approving of the job Bloomberg has done over the past eight years.

Regardless of how people feel about term limits, the average voter in New York City is the true loser here. Whether Bloomberg will be re-elected in 2009 remains to be seen, but what is obvious as of now is that the mayoral race has become more difficult for anyone who isn’t named Michael R. Bloomberg, who has $80 million of his own money set aside to spend campaigning. Councilman Charles Barron may have said it best: “Even though the mayor will win today, he is the big loser, because he lost democracy, he lost the favor of the people.”

by Erin J. Mansfield

“[Joining The Stony Brook Press] was the best thing that I ever did,” Scott Higham told a packed auditorium of enthusiastic journalism students at the Stony Brook Student Union last Wednesday night.

Higham won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting in 2002. He graduated from Stony Brook University in the eighties and attended Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. He has been an investigative reporter with the Washington Post since 2000.

While an undergrad at Stony Brook, Higham began working for The Press. “I wanted to make friends,” he said candidly. He soon found himself investigating falsified well documents at a local construction site, a story that led him to what one only sees in movies – a man meeting him at a dark gas station with a manila envelope. He wrote what his friend told him was a “holy shit” story. “It’s when you open the paper and say to yourself, ‘Holy shit!’”

Higham became the Executive Editor of The Press. He dedicated all of his time to the paper, produced it weekly, and, as a result, almost flunked out of school. It was then that he realized his dream to become an investigative holy shit journalist because, “You can really make a difference.”

And make a difference he did.

He was the first reporter at the scene of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1994, about which he humbly commented, “I was able to be a witness to history,” as if he were the luckiest man in the world.

Most notably, Higham exposed the faulty child-protection system in Washington DC, where many children died while under the supervision of the organization. It resulted in an overhaul of the system, including the firings of judges and social workers who were aware of the flawed policies; the removal of a Maryland congressman for the first time in 200 years; and a Pulitzer Prize.

He more recently reported on the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib prison scandals, and is currently on leave from the Washington Post while he writes a follow-up book about Chandra Levy, the Washington DC intern who disappeared in 2001.

Higham said that the most important lesson in investigative journalism is persistence, “Never taking no for an answer.” You spend day after day, making phone call after phone call, and, “Sometimes you just break through to the other side.”

Towards the end of his speech, when a student asked him if he ever regretted becoming a journalist, he swiftly replied, “No.”

By Najib Aminy

Billionaire Warren Buffet called Wall Street’s market turmoil an economic Pearl Harbor. With twenty percent of New York State’s budget cemented on the rollercoaster ups and downs of Wall Street, Dan Melucci, Stony Brook University Associate Vice President for Strategy and Analysis, has called the SUNY budget cuts “lunacy.”

Due to the Wall Street economic disaster, New York Governor David Paterson has called upon statewide agency cuts to remedy the projected loss of revenue. In early April, SUNY was cut a total of $50 million, or roughly 3%. Taking its share, Stony Brook was to cut $7.4 million from its operating budget of the fiscal 2008-2009 year. Following the April decision, a second round of cuts will be underway, of which SUNY will suffer a total of $96.3 million. At that point, SUNY would have a net cut of 146.3 million. Stony Brook University, along with the other sixty-three SUNY institutions, are still waiting for their share in the $96.3 cut. Melucci predicts that Stony Brook may be looking at a budget cut in the ballpark of $9.5 million.

About a week ago, Carl McCall, Chair of the finance and administration committee of SUNY trustees, said that SUNY will absorb anywhere from $20 to $50 million of the $96.3 million cut leaving the rest to be dispersed among campuses. However, Melucci said that he believes SUNY will take a $20 million cut leaving $70-plus million to be distributed among the campuses. 

Now with both the national and global economy taking a turn for the worst, Governor Paterson has called for the NYS legislature to convene after the upcoming elections on November 18 to discuss the financial crisis looming over the NYS’ budget and economy. It is highly anticipated that this special meeting will result in further cuts. According to Melucci, the Governor is faced with a $1.2 billion shortfall in revenue. In order to assess this financial dilemma, the Governor is looking to propose another state-agency cut to the tune of $2 billion.

In this proposed $2 billion cut, SUNY anticipates a third round of cuts as well as a possible tuition hike. Stony Brook has had only one tuition hike in the past thirteen years, which was five years ago. The latest tuition hike spiked to 28%, a number that may seem alarming to current Stony Brook students. A 28% increase of today’s tuition would result in an in-state student paying $5,568 from the original $4,350, and $13,580 from the original $10,610 for out of state.

A proposed alternative to a dramatic hike in tuition, supported by Melucci and Stony Brook distinguished Sociology professor Norman Goodman, is a rationalized tuition that increases steadily and allows students to predict how much they would have to pay for their education. Goodman, also the Vice President Secretary of the SUNY-wide Faculty Senate, is a supporter of free tuition, but deems it as “politically infeasible.” According to the 45-year Stony Brook Sociology professor, “the most intelligent and politically wise thing to do is raise tuition to a reasonable level and tie that to a commitment to a rational policy in the future.”

It seems that the question regarding the tuition hike is no longer “if” but rather “when?” “It would be crazy if it doesn’t happen,” said Goodman. Melucci, who would also be surprised if a tuition hike did not occur, is worried about students who rely on the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP). This program funds up to $5,000 for students who are the most financially needy. Melucci is worried that an unreasonable tuition hike may force students to chip in the amount of tuition not covered by TAP.

In terms of total cuts, SUNY projects to subtract a total of $210 million by the end of the year, according to SUNY spokesperson David Henehan. Under this projection, SUNY is looking to receive a $64 million cut in the November emergency meeting. According to Henehan, SUNY is looking into long-term solutions to the chronic problem of under-funding. Solutions mentioned by Henehan include the proposition of a rational tuition plan and the revision of personnel classification allowing SUNY to hire with flexibility. This would permit SUNY to lease or sell property to generate revenue, and allow SUNY to relieve its regulatory restrictions, such as pre-audit approval of contracts.

Currently advocating for additional flexibility and a tuition plan, Henehan said about SUNY, “[it] provides tremendous benefits to New York in the form of an educated citizenry, economic development, cultural enrichment and social mobility and therefore merits investment by the state.” New York State Assemblyman Michael J. Fitzpatrick (R) of Smithtown stressed the severity of the current economic crisis. “The dust has yet to settle,” Fitzpatrick said, “[this is] the end of a consumption culture and living beyond our means.” When discussing the SUNY cuts, Fitzpatrick said that higher education was of top priority, but sees the “state has been spending beyond its means for so long.” As a result, cuts across the board are going to be seen, including SUNY.

The Bundy Aid, untouched by any of the cuts, aids independent and privatized universities in New York and financially supports 105 private institutions. When asked, Fitzpatrick said that the mere pointing of fingers and questioning why one group receives more than another is expected, also stating that “private institutions are equally important as state.” Yet, Fitzpatrick mentioned numerous times, “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Fitzpatrick believes that such a crisis can result in legitimate oversight and reduce unnecessary expenditure and create a successful economy in the long-term picture.

In terms of investing in higher education, the majority of State Assemblyman and Senators interviewed relayed the message that, due to troubling times, SUNY, along with all other State Agencies, are to feel some pain. State Assemblyman John McEneny (D) of Albany said that neither SUNY nor any other agency is “a sacred cow” that can be protected from cuts. When it comes to tuition, “judgment comes in a vacuum,” meaning that it would be hard to vote against a tuition hike if, alongside the bill, there is a proposition ensuring heat to a New York town over the winter, as McEneny put it.

One of the few State politicians that was clear in voicing his opposition against a proposed hike in tuition was Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D) of Port Jefferson Station. A former Stony Brook graduate himself, Assemblyman Englebright emphasized the importance of public higher education, saying “state universities should be given preferred status with cuts in other agencies.” Referring to the domino effect, Englebright explained that investing into public higher education would create a long-lasting stability and build up the economy. “[Protecting SUNY] would pull us out of the recession and give confidence back to Wall Street.” With a strong belief in preserving both TAP and the SUNY tuition, Englebright sees higher education as a platform worthy of investment and amidst these cuts sees a so-called “millionaire’s tax” as a probable solution.

Marissa Shorenstein, spokeswoman of Governor Paterson’s office, said that Governor Paterson is not looking to raise taxes, but rather to cut spending and invest wisely. Shorenstein mentioned that the November meeting was called on such a date not because of the elections but because, “it was simply the first date that made sense given all of the recent holidays, etc.” Shorenstein added, “while the Governor’s commitment to higher education remains strong, difficult choices will need to be made across state spending to protect the state’s fiscal integrity, and every area of state spending will need to find ways to operate more efficiently.”

As a result of the latest cuts, Stony Brook has recently enacted a hiring freeze. “We had to do something to slow down expenditures and to get people’s attention that this is a serious issue. It makes no sense to be hiring new people now,” said Melucci. He added, “we don’t believe the failure of the state should be put on the back of the students in large dollar amounts. I am really worried about the health, financial health of this institution.” Further cuts could result in significant and highly visible changes for both Stony Brook and SUNY students alike. According to Goodman, the number of classes would dwindle due to a decreased number in professional staff. This would mean larger class sizes, which would result in a longer time to graduate and further raise student expenses.

“When Wall Street catches a cold, the NYS budget gets pneumonia,” said Assemblyman Englebright. As a result, SUNY and its students end up being affected. An increased tuition hike can remedy only so much. With potentially more cuts on the way, it leaves administrators like Melucci crunching the remaining numbers, hoping for the best. “We run some numbers that scare the hell out of us very honestly,” said Melucci, “the numbers are so scary that they are absurd.”

By Natalie Crnosij

During a lecture on October 8th, hosted by the Social Justice Alliance, Kristofer Goldsmith, a 23-year-old Iraqi War veteran, said, “I didn’t shoot the kid, not because I’m a good person, but because I knew his family would retaliate and kill me or my friends.”

Goldsmith recounted the details of a night operation, one during which he was covering his commanding officer as an Iraqi squad executed a raid.  The child, brandishing a faux AK-47 on a rooftop, was in Goldsmith’s sight, but Goldsmith, having probable cause to shoot, did not.  It was the Iraqi children, throwing bricks when their easily shoot-able parents could not, who made Goldsmith’s “miserable experience even more physically painful.” Goldsmith didn’t shoot, knowing the hell that could come his way would be a greater threat than the prevailing one.

Kristofer Goldsmith, a Long Islander who enlisted in the U.S. Marines out of high school, found himself at 18, with “the God-like power to destroy anything.”  Acting as the right hand of the U.S.A. in Sadr City, Goldsmith found that his training with heavy artillery was not usable as the Iraqi Conflict became a game of insurgence, and he became recast as a ground intelligence officer.   It wasn’t the halo of bombs but the “flash of a camera” which burned indelible images into his memory.  These pictures, projected onto a plain wall in Harriman Hall, were a window into the frayed outskirts of Baghdad.  The streets were brown and black: it was not sand, pavement, or the River Styx, but raw sewage flowing down the boulevard, loosed by bombs and the crush and roll of Abrams tanks down the streets during the invasion.  

Goldsmith was ordered to a sewer, where he had to photo-ID the bodies of twelve men who had been killed and dumped.  “I was walking around, totally fucked up, making it less real by looking through the LCD screen and not at their faces,” Goldsmith said as he showed the pictures he took of faces abused and decayed beyond identification. “War porn” was the only thing they could be, he reasoned, as no person could be identified from the pictures he took. “War porn” is a term for pictures taken by soldiers to show off their kills, much like the proto-European practice of beheading one’s enemies after battle and tying the severed head to the victor’s belt.  My, haven’t we advanced! Those further up the chain of command would snatch the pictures and claim them as their own and trade them like “Pokemon cards.” Goldsmith stood before the bodies as flies brought the “smell of death” to his face, a smell which he could not scrub, sanitize or boil out.

“I smelled a lot of death in Iraq, lots of dead animals, and there is a big difference between that and the smell of a dead human being,” Goldsmith said.  “I smelled it non-stop.  Food tasted like death.  My dreams smelled like death.”

The death did not stop once Goldsmith left Iraq but followed the soldiers back.  One-in-five soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and eighteen Iraqi War veterans commit suicide every day.  The death has not stopped in Iraq, where there is no accurate number of casualties, only estimates somewhere in the vague sea between 10,000 and 100,000, where millions of people suffer the effects of PTSD from living in Armageddon for over six years.  “I encourage you not to just care about the soldiers, but the Iraqis, and do something.  Go speak to a representative and tell them why this is wrong,” Goldsmith said, “Stop-loss  is wrong.”

The loss has not stopped. Thus, it is wrong.

By Jie Jenny Zou

What is this? A building for ants!?

Is overcrowding at the SAC Wellness Center getting you down?  Are short weekend hours cutting down on your flextime? Gym rats, fear no more.

In a press conference on Wednesday Susan DiMonda, Dean of Health, and Marie Turchiano, Campus Recreation Director, confirmed the University’s plan to build a new recreation center. Slated to open in 2011 for the incoming class, the center will cater to the needs of the long-ignored intramurals, sports clubs and the typical SBU student who wants to forgo the “freshman 15.” The specs for the two floor plus basement center boast nearly 50,000 square feet of space to exercise to your heart’s content; that’s five times the size of the current Wellness Center located on the 3rd floor of the SAC.

The plan to build comes in light of the growing demand for workout space. With the Sports Complex mainly serving the Athletics Department and the SAC viciously overcrowded, focus will be put on open recreation and non-committal programs. The center will introduce a multi-court arena with room for basketball, indoor soccer, badminton, floor hockey (with ability to “play off the walls”) and an overlooking one-tenth mile track.

The Obvious Positives:
1. New fitness studios will be able to accommodate 40-50 people as opposed to the SAC dance studios current capacity of 20-25 people. This will allow for both a greater range of class programming and for multiple classes to run simultaneously.

2. The projected hours of service will extend through the weekend and late weeknights, making the center open for use 18 hours a day and 7 days per week.

3. Amenities include a wellness suite with a possible computation site, free daily use of lockers, TV monitors, showers, a lounge area with wireless internet, a storage area and a laundry service specifically designated for Sport Clubs.

The Not-So-Pretty:
1. The projected cost is $37.5 million. That’s your student activity fee and then some. Consider this in conjunction with the planned budget cuts.

2. The recreation center is slated to open in 2011.  We all know how good Stony Brook is at keeping itspromises; Roth Food Court anyone?

3. Location: Between the pool and right next to the Union. Will require you to go through the Stadium parking lot to get to its single, card-swipe entrance.

4. The current Wellness Center in the SAC will be transformed into a series of dance studios to house Stony Brook’s currently un-housed dance groups. This may or may not be as a bad thing.

5. A unisex changing room. $37.5 million couldn’t purchase a dividing wall?

6. As usual, undergraduate students will have access to the center for free, while graduate students and faculty members will have to purchase memberships. Expect the same cardio machines, free weights and circuit training of the SAC, just on a larger scale.  I’m sure all of you reading will be ecstatic come June for the ground-breaking ceremony, especially since many of us will no longer be here (God willingly) to see this project come to fruition. That is, if the global economy does not collapse before then.