By Najib Aminy

Cancer accounts for nearly a quarter of the American mortalities each year, as reported by the American Cancer Society. The Stony Brook University Cancer Center is designed to provide the best care and work towards the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and curing of cancer, according to their mission statement. Aspiring to become a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, Stony Brook University formally hired Dr. Timothy J. Kinsella as the new Director of the Cancer Center on October 8.

Dr. Timothy J. Kinsella

Appointed by Dr. Richard N. Fine, Dean of the Stony Brook School of Medicine, Dr. Kinsella will take charge of the two-year-old center, with plans to collaborate with both Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and Brookhaven National Labs. The Center aims to continue basic cancer research programs, expand therapeutic cancer-related services and provide educational outreach to the community. “Dr. Kinsella is an outstanding physician with considerable administrative experience,” said Dean Fine. “In choosing him to lead our program, we have formulated a vision for development of an National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center that will serve as a major clinical and research enterprise for Long Island.”

Prior to his hiring at Stony Brook, Dr. Kinsella spent two decades working at the University of Wisconsin from 1987 to 1997. Shortly after, he joined University Hospitals of Case Western in Cleveland from 1997 to 2007. Recently, Dr. Kinsella worked at the NCI, where he was appointed as a member of the Board of Scientific Advisors. Dean Fine’s appointment of Dr. Kinsella is no doubt an effort to make Stony Brook a nationally recognized comprehensive cancer center. However, allegations have surfaced against Dr. Kinsella during his time at both UW and UH, and very recently, the New York Trial Lawyers Association has delved into the process of investigating further information on Dr. Kinsella.

While working at the University of Wisconsin, Dr. Kinsella, who served as deputy director of the Cancer Center before leaving, was investigated by the university after an anonymous complaint was sent to Chancellor David Ward, UW Dean of Medical School Philip Farrell, and hospital billing administrator Dr. Scott Springman. In the letter, dated November 1996, a widower, whose wife was a patient under Kinsella’s care, brought up allegations pertaining to improper medical billing.

According to the anonymous widower, Dr. Kinsella had billed his wife for radiation simulations while Kinsella himself was absent from the actual treatment procedure. The widower discussed his allegation with a neighbor who was an employee at UW. The letter states that the UW employee “has a list of several hundred total patients dating back into the late 1980s,” who had radiation simulation done by Dr. Kinsella on specific dates when there were records confirming that he was out of the state of Wisconsin.

The anonymous letter sparked an investigation by both the Department of Health and Human Services, which regulates Medicare, and the University of Wisconsin itself. Lisa Brunette, a spokeswoman from the University of Wisconsin confirmed that both investigations took place. The DHHS confirmed that no action was taken on Dr. Kinsella after their investigation, since Dr. Kinsella was not excluded from receiving Medicare benefits. On the contrary, the University of Wisconsin probe discovered that Dr. Kinsella received $5,815 from improper medical billings.

The probe looked into a total of 247 medical services while Dr. Kinsella was out of town from 1995 to 1996. Of these 247 services, 66 were found to involve improper documentation, and 19 were discovered for improper billing reported by The Wisconsin State Journal. Dr. Kinsella agreed to pay the $5,815 he received from the improper billings back to the patients as well as $15,000 out of the $22,000 for the cost of the six-month investigation conducted by the University of Wisconsin.

“It was just his idiosyncratic way of summarizing things,” said Michael Weiden of Madison, WI law firm Quarles and Brady, who was Dr. Kinsella’s lawyer at the time. “There is less than meets the eye,” Weiden said to Wisconsin reporters. “Doctors keep personal notes in all sorts of ways—on Post-its, index cards, little notebooks—and the documents in which Kinsella made these notations were not the official hospital medical records.”

A little more than ten years later, Dr. Kinsella confirmed that an investigation had taken place. He said during a phone interview about the probe, “There was an issue of an anonymous complaint of issues with respect to billing that turned out to be false.” According to Dr. Kinsella, the investigation was proven false by a review of the records through the UW hospital. Neither Brunette nor John C. Dowling, a UW attorney could confirm whether or not the allegations in the probe were later proven false.

UW Medical School officials recommended disciplinary action to be filed to Chancellor Ward. He stated in a letter dated May 9, 1997, that there was adequate cause for disciplinary action,” The Capital Times reported. However, no action was filed because Ward recognized Dr. Kinsella’s agreeing to pay for both the improper billings and withdrawing his name from re-appointment as department chair, as both responsible and appropriate. Regarding the probed allegations, Dr. Kinsella said, “Those were investigated. No allegations were found. It was well over a decade ago. That is old news.”

During his time at UW, Dr. Kinsella allegedly left an unfavorable impression on his colleagues. These colleagues would later go to a former UW clinical administrator officer from the Department of Oncology. The former administrative official wished not to reveal their name, as the individual wishes no longer to be involved in any way with Dr. Kinsella. Alleging that Dr. Kinsella was battling with an inferiority complex, the former UW clinical administrator said that Dr. Kinsella “was very combative for other positions with other heads of departments and [had] a way of irritating people.” When Dr. Kinsella made the list of the Top 10 Docs in the Madison Magazine, the surgeon oncologists were livid that his name was included, according to the former clinical administrator.

In addition, many UW employees would approach the former clinical administrator in regards to some of Dr. Kinsella’s behavior. “A lot of people would come to me and complain about Dr. Kinsella,” the former administrator said, adding that it was mostly about his billing procedures and even at times about his sexual promiscuity. The former clinical administrator alleged instances where Dr. Kinsella would excuse himself from meetings and conferences to rendezvous with women.

Though the allegation regarding Dr. Kinsella’s sexual misadventures remains unconfirmed, numerous unnamed doctors were quoted in The Wisconsin State Journal regarding Dr. Kinsella’s medical billing procedures. “It became increasingly nauseating for us to see the Kinsella patients have three or four times the length of the normal procedures,” said one unnamed doctor in the Wisconsin State Journal. The doctor wished to remain anonymous, because Dr. Kinsella could influence the change of the salaries, promotions and tenure of eight doctors and nine medical researchers at the time. “It became unbearable to watch the billing-directed care—it was always directed at maximized billing,” the doctor added.  The former UW clinical administrator said, “The number of improper billings done by Kinsella as reported in the articles was under quoted by 10 times the amount.”

Before leaving UW, the majority of the members of the Human Oncology Department voiced their concerns over Dr. Kinsella in a vote of no confidence taken in 1996. The vote of no confidence pertained to Kinsella’s administrative role as Chairman of the Human Oncology Department and unconnected with the investigation taking place by UW. A vote of confidence is procedural and taken annually at UW.  According to the Wisconsin State Journal, departmental researchers supported Kinsella, but doctors voted against him due to excessive and aggressive billings, about which one doctor said, “There were some concerns about how he practiced in terms of very aggressive billings.”

Dr. Kinsella responded to the doctor’s critiques, saying in the phone interview, “I think I am recognized nationally and internationally for my clinical expertise in cancer treatments. It stands alone. I’ve published nearly 330 articles and am looked on as an expert in many areas of radiation oncology.”

After withdrawing his name for re-appointment as chairman of UW’s Human Oncology Department, Dr. Kinsella remained at UW teaching, before joining University Hospitals Case Medical Center in 1997 as Chairman of the Department of Radiation Oncology.  Over a span of 10 years, Dr. Kinsella and his laboratory team researched biochemical and molecular effects of ionizing radiation and different types of radiosensitizing drugs in human tumor cells, according to Alicia Reale, a UH spokeswoman.

Dr. Kinsella's previous place of employment, Case Western's University Hospitals, is renovating their cancer center as seen above.

While chairman at UH, Dr. Kinsella specialized in gastrointestinal cancers, lymphoma, melanoma and sarcomas among other cancers. Thus, when cancer survivor Amelia Weber was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the lip, she turned to Dr. Kinsella for treatment of her cancer in 2006. “My first impression of him was that he was a dirty old man. However, I told myself that I was mistaken in that view, as University Hospitals of Cleveland would never have that kind of person in their employ, nor as the Chairman of the Department of Radiation Oncology,” she said in an email interview. “For those reasons, I granted Dr. Kinsella far too much trust, and became his victim of sexual assault.”

Weber alleges that Dr. Kinsella behaved inappropriately while conducting physical examinations, such as smiling while touching sensitive areas of her body. Additionally, Weber alleges numerous instances where Dr. Kinsella physically touched her in sensitive areas of the body without providing any medical reasoning, all against her will. For example, Weber alleges that Dr. Kinsella asked her to undress. Howeverm when she refused, Kinsella proceeded with the examination. Secondly, Weber alleges that she was billed a total of 35 treatments while she only received 33 and was stunned when she learned about Kinsella’s past at UW. As a result of her experience, Weber filed a complaint to the Ohio State Medical Board (OSMB) through her attorney, Wade Sanders.

In the complaint, there are a number of instances where Weber alleges that Kinsella touched her inappropriately, made lewd comments and called her to solicit for sex. The complaint was sent to the OSMB in March of 2007 and is pending as of October 15, 2008 in an audio recorded confirmation. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio confirmed that Weber’s complaint was pending on August 25, 2008, after Weber filed a complaint regarding one of Kinsella’s attorneys.

Amy Stone, the Assistant Disciplinary Counsel of the SCO wrote in a letter addressed to Weber, “We typically do not conduct investigations while a grievant and the attorney about whom s/he complained are involved in a pending case or other agency investigation.”  Only once Weber’s complaint with the OSMB is processed and concluded would Weber be able to file a complaint to the Disciplinary Counsel, according to Stone. “Once the Board proceedings and any related litigation concluded, presumably with decisions that do not restrict their disclosure to this office, you may re-submit your grievance,” said Stone in the letter.

According to Reale, Dr. Kinsella stepped down from his position as Chairman at UH in October 2007, months after Weber’s complaint was sent.  “He stepped down as Chairman at UHCMC to pursue his research in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He continued to see patients at UHCMC until May 2008,” Reale said in an email.

Reale confirmed that an independent investigation took place at UH after Weber’s complaint was filed to the OSMB. UH concluded that Weber’s allegations were unsubstantiated. In the phone interview, Dr. Kinsella denied having a pending action complaint filed against him through the Ohio State Medical Board as well as having any complaint filed against him through the OSMB at anytime.

Weber’s complaint regarding Dr. Kinsella’s attorney is tied to a possible violation of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability of 1996 (HIPAA). After filing her complaint with the OSMB, Weber looked into the option of filing a civil suit against Dr. Kinsella. Ben Barrett, Weber’s attorney for possible civil action, met with Dr. Kinsella’s attorneys, Melvin Resnick and Jodi Thomaszewski on May 6, 2008, during which Dr. Kinsella’s attorneys said they wanted to “resolve the issue,” according to Weber. In this meeting, according to Barrett’s meeting summary sent to Weber, Dr. Kinsella’s attorneys provided sensitive and confidential information in their defense. According to the meeting summary signed by Barrett, Dr. Kinsella’s attorneys were well aware of Weber’s allegations through the OSMB. In their defense, the attorneys went through 500 medical records to show that the body examinations Dr. Kinsella conducts were consistent.

Dr. Kinsella’s attorney also provided information regarding Weber’s confidential patient satisfaction survey, in which Weber allegedly gave high marks to both Dr. Kinsella and another male doctor while giving negative criticism towards a female nurse. According to the HHS, patient surveys are to be kept confidential.

The HHS also stated that covered entities may disclose protected health information during judicial or administrative proceedings, administrative reviews or licensing and credentialing activities. A covered entity, by definition of HIPAA, is “a health plan, health care clearinghouse, and a health care provider who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by this subchapter.” A covered entity may also include a business associate, which is defined as a person who performs activity regulated on behalf of a covered entity. “Business associates exclude a person who is part of the covered entity’s workforce.”

When Barrett met with Dr. Kinsella’s attorneys, there was no judicial case or hearing set. “The confidential patient information that Dr. Kinsella and his attorneys removed from UH and used in a willful and malicious way to harm me, or intimidate me, clearly was not intended to be used with regard to the OH Medical Board investigations rather to a potential civil suit,” said Weber.

As a result, Weber has filed a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services, Civil Rights Division. According to Kathleen Fimple, a HIPAA team leader in the division of Civil Rights, Weber’s complaint was received and her complaint will be assigned between December and January due to a six-month backlog experienced by the HHS. Penalties for HIPAA violations are fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if violation was done with intent of personal gain or malicious harm, according to the HHS.

On November 19, the Ohio Association for Justice sent emails to its trial lawyers requesting information about Dr. Kinsella. The email read, “Our friends at the New York State Trial Lawyer’s Association need information ASAP on a doctor who has practiced in Ohio, Dr. Timothy Kinsella.  He has been appointed to head of the cancer department in New York.” The email inquired upon lawsuits filed against him in Ohio as well as complaints filed against him through the OSMB. The NYSTLA’s  mission is “To promote a safer and healthier society, to assure access to the civil justice system by those who are wrongfully injured and to advance representation of the public by ethical, well-trained lawyers.”

Weber contacted Dean Fine regarding the hiring of Dr. Kinsella and her allegations on October 9. Dean Fine responded to Weber in a letter over a month later, on November 11, the same day that the phone interview with Dr. Kinsella took place. In the letter, Dean Fine wrote, “I received and read your letter dated October 9, 2008. The contents will be reviewed. Thank you for writing to me.” Weber sent a letter to Dr. Stongwater, CEO of the Stony Brook Medical Center, on October 20. Weber received a letter from Strongwater confirming that her letter was received on November 29.

Dean Fine could not be reached for an interview at the time of publication, but in an email responded, “Dr. Kinsella is a nationally known clinician and administrator who was brought on board to help us execute our vision to develop a National Cancer Institute designated Comprehensive Cancer Center that will serve as a major clinical and research enterprise for Long Island. Along with his extensive experience in academic medicine, Dr. Kinsella was recently appointed to the National Cancer Institute’s Board of Scientific Advisors, a highly significant appointment.”

By Jon Singer

Each year in New York State, as many as 7,000 people die in hospitals as a result of medical negligence. Between 300 and 400 doctors are punished each year, and about 8,000 complaints are filed. While physicians at times try to cover up their mistakes and some problems are not reported, legally all of the reported information is available for consumers to know.

Blair Horner, executive director of NYPIRG, points to the New York State Physician Profile Website, a site that is run by the New York State Department of Health. “It’s a great website, but nobody knows it exists,” says Horner.

This is because when legislation was passed in 2000 to create the website, those lobbying on behalf of physicians were able to kill a provision that would have required the URL be posted in doctor’s offices and hospitals.

On the national level, there is the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDb). The website is hosted by the US Department of Health And Human Services and provides information regarding issues such as reported cases of malpractice. “[Before the NPDb was created] the phenomenon of ‘state jumping’ was legion,” says Arthur Levin, Director of the advocacy organization the Center for Medical Consumers, regarding the high occurrence of these cases. But federal regulations prohibit NPDb information from being released to the public. Only health care entities such as hospitals, state licensing boards and approved private practices are eligible to receive a paid NPDb account.

“Hospitals, state licensing boards, HMOs, they are supposed to check before giving people credentials,” says Horner. In New York State, issuing a medical license is the responsibility of the State Education Department, as opposed to the Department of Health. “States do this differently,” says Levin.

Also, a characteristic of New York is the fact that reports of past actions can trigger an investigation, but do not necessarily stop the license from going forward. Basic questions regarding past convictions are on the application for a medical license. Sections 10 thru 14 on New York’s Application for Licensure and First Registration deal with crime. Section 12 asks: “Has any licensing or disciplinary authority refused to issue you a license or ever revoked, annulled, cancelled, accepted surrender of, suspended, placed on probation, refused to renew a professional license or certificate held by you now or previously, or ever fined, censured, reprimanded or otherwise disciplined you?” Levin says, “In some states, answering that question in the affirmative stops the process.”

Horner says that the largest area of malpractice lies in misperscribing drugs, which accounts for 20 to 25 percent of medical errors. “New York seems to pay pretty good attention to what goes on in other states,” says Levin, adding that in New York 40 percent of medical discipline cases are based on actions taken in another jurisdiction. “You cannot presume anything about a doctor,” he says.

Today, Levin cannot say exactly how common “state jumping” is. “Many doctors are only licensed in one state,” he says, adding that doctors don’t need a license to do health policy work.

By Laura Cooper

Stony Brook University Medical Center is the primary treatment facility for residents of Suffolk County. The center houses research facilities as well as classrooms for instruction in numerous subjects, including nursing. The hospital is also home to a treatment center with just over 500 beds for its patients. From pregnancies to allergic reactions, the medical center is the primary option for most residents and since it is a public hospital, it has become a haven for those without insurance. This is especially apparent because four East End hospitals are associated with, and transfer their patients to, Stony Brook Medical Center when the diagnosis is beyond their means. However, the past couple of years have brought attention to mismanagement in the hospital, including misdiagnosis that has led to deaths—especially involving their pediatric practices. The hospital has been under investigation and cited by the Department of Health numerous times, and though lately the center has managed to stay out of the spotlight, its grim past leaves the future of the Stony Brook Medical Center uncertain.

In 2005, a year before the New York State Health Department closed the Pediatric Cardiac Treatment Center citing “imminent danger to health and safety,” three children died under the care of the Stony Brook University Medical Center.  One child died as a result of getting twenty sevent times worth the dosage of medication needed, another died after not receiving adequate pre-operation procedures for adenoid surgery and the third died after waiting a week for a surgeon to operate on a heart problem after being born prematurely. Stony Brook University Medical Center did not transfer the waiting child, but rather, left him while other facilities with a full-time staff could have operated on the baby.

A year later, another case brought the hospital back into the spotlight after a six year-old boy from Mastic, William Gonzalez, died under the hospital’s care.  After being transferred from an East End hospital in Brookhaven, Gonzalez was treated at Stony Brook Medical Center three separate times before his eventual death at the hospital. Gonzalez, a first grader, was sent to the hospital and treated for reflux after an x-ray revealed that he had an enlarged heart. A state report on the matter stated, “There is no documented evidence that the heart problem was addressed.” Since then, the hospital has implemented the “P.E.A.S” System, or Pediatric Early Addressing Scores, which, among other things, monitors a patient’s heart and breathing in the hopes that no symptoms can be misdiagnosed. Gonzalez’s father responded positively to the program remarking to Newsday that he will be satisfied, “If my son’s death at Stony Brook was not in vain and if this [system] hopefully will not let another child or adult die.”

In the first set of lawsuits against the Medical Center, parents of patients in its Pediatric Cardiac Center sued after their children were mistreated following their diagnosis of heart birth defects and instead treated for stomach problems.  Stony Brook University Medical Center was the one hospital in Suffolk County at the time that treated children with these specific problems. The charges against the hospital of this alleged misguided treatment were dropped this October after the health department’s investigation. Parents of patients who almost lost their lives at the hands of the cardiac center still band together in believing that if their children stayed at Stony Brook, they wouldn’t be alive today.

After it was announced that the medical center was responsible for nineteen violations in pediatric surgery and seventeen violations involving overlooking symptoms and overdoses in 2006 alone, a new Chief Executive, Steven L. Strongwater, took over the hospital in December 2006 and continues to monitor the hospital’s care today. Stony Brook University President, Shirley Strum Kenny, has also called for additional changes in the hospital’s staff and procedures and has commissioned a blue ribbon committee to research and address its findings of the faults in the Stony Brook Medical Center.

Though lately it seems it is business as usual at the Stony Brook Medical Center, it is unclear what the future holds for this hospital, which serves 400,000 patients per year. The hospital remains under investigation, and its treatment facilities are regularly assessed. Though originally the Medical Center attempted to restart the Pediatric Cardiac Center in the hospital, the treatment center remains closed indefinitely.

In this issue’s lead cover article, you can see that there have been numerous allegations that have surfaced after the hiring of the University’s new Director of the Cancer Center, Dr. Timothy Kinsella.

However, we are now focused on the Health Science Center itself. We don’t know what Dr. Kinsella’s future holds. In fact, that may not even be the major question in a few weeks. We’ve spoken with Dr. Kinsella. We would like to speak with him again, in the future. He has cooperated with us. The folks in HSC haven’t.

After weeks of attempting to sit down with either Dr. Fine or Dr. Strongwater, two major players of the HSC, we still haven’t gotten any sort of straight answer from them. Ms. Weber did not receive any sort of substantial response from either of the doctors, either, after sending them letters. We at The Stony Brook Press have gone through University Media Relations, hand-delivered letters of intent to the doctors, and spoken directly with their assistants and secretaries, but we still haven’t been able to get them to open up for even five minutes. We have provided them ample time for response. They have known what we are publishing, and yet still they remain quiet.

We want the HSC to talk to us about this. In fact, we don’t see the sense in the HSC not speaking out on the subject. It’s in your best interest, HSC! You need to have your say. Because, as it stands right now, you hired someone with a questionable past for an incredibly important position in our University, and we need to hear more than the simple, stock press releases you’ve sent us these past few months.

Shortly after the letters of intention were delivered to the HSC, we at The Press received an anonymous phone-call from someone working in the Health Science Center. This call informed us that the one hundred copies of Issue 5, Volume 30 of The Press, which had just been delivered, were being removed from our racks. Not only is that illegal, being theft of Undergraduate Student property, but its also rather suspicious.

Our email address is sbpressnews@gmail.com. Our office phone number is 631-632-6451. We’re located in the Union building basement, room 060, if you are bold enough to come down to talk. Our editors and writers are always available. So, open up, HSC! As of this moment, we don’t think you’re hiding anything. But if you keep up this tight-lipped act, our outlook on the whole situation may change.

By Natalie Crnosija

Dr. Sharon Nachman, a Pediatric Infectious Disease Specialist at Stony Brook Medical Center, said last Thursday at a Student Health Services’ press conference that the recent cases of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at Stony Brook University provided “a wonderful opportunity to talk to students about infectious disease.”

The panel, composed of Nachman, Dr. Susan V. Donelan, an Adult Infectious Disease Specialist at Stony Brook Medical Center, and Robert Ansbach, the Assistant Director of Student Health Services, addressed how MRSA was spread, precautions students should take, proper public reaction, and how to treat MRSA should one become infected by the bacterium.

MRSA, also known as “staph,” is a mutated bacterium which is resistant to penicillin, methicillin and other antibiotics and is commonly found in hospitals and healthcare facilities among patients with compromised immune systems.

According to Nachman, MRSA is no longer confined to hospitals and recent Center for Disease Control studies have shown that up to 30% of the U.S. population is carrying the bacterium.  Within that percentage, only one percent of the population is infected with staph.
MRSA permanently colonizes the skin and mucus membranes of its host, according to Donelan.  The bacterium is spread by skin-to-skin contact, contact with open wounds, and gym equipment-sharing.

“People will not know they are carrying the bacteria until they cut themselves and get an infection,” Nachman said.

If toys had MRSA this is what they would wear.

Most staph infections present themselves as a swollen boil or pimple near the point of entry.  Without treatment a staph infection can develop into cellulitis, a widespread skin infection which is more difficult to cure than the initial MRSA infection.

“MRSA is very easily managed with oral antibiotics,” said Donelan.

“The important thing is for the infected student to go to Student Health Services and get treatment, the most important thing is to take medication and cover [the skin] up and go to class and you’re not going to infect anyone,” said Nachman.

Infected students have been treated at the Student Health Center, according to Ansbach.

According to Nachman, there is no benefit in making a pariah of an infected student.  It is more important to use common sense hygiene and stop the colonization of the bacterium in an area.

“The chain of infection must be broken,” Donelan said.  “Jails, dorms and other close-living quarters generate a lot of bacteria and one infected person has already colonized others.”

MRSA is not immune to environmental cleansers, according to Donelan, and the term “superbug” is a misnomer and “unnecessarily worrisome.”

“We have a few cases every year, but there was no issue until the nationally reported deaths last year,” said Ansbach.

The New England Journal of Medicine and Newsday are not the same thing and the relative danger of the bacterium to the public was misrepresented, according to Donelan.

“I usually see two to three patients a week with MRSA,” Nachman said.  “They are put on antibiotics and are fine.”

By Erin J. Mansfield

Stony Brook students rallied outside of the SAC on Wednesday, November 19, during Campus Lifetime to protest the SUNY budget cuts.

Over 100 students were in attendance; less than one percent of undergraduates were outraged enough to stand out in the cold to have their voices heard, but that did not deter the ones who came for the cause.

The protest was organized by the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) and the United University Professors (UUP). Representatives from both organizations spoke out against SUNY budget cuts and encouraged students to be outraged by the financial situation of the university.

Stony Brook University’s tuition is scheduled to increase by $310 in the spring of 2009 for in-state students.

John Schmidt, President of the West Campus UUP, mentioned that, “SUNY has a ‘rainy day fund’ of just over one billion dollars,” a sum of money which he thinks, given the $1.5 billion cut that needs to be made, would make a major impact if spent on the university.

USG representatives handed out letter templates to protestors. All students were encouraged to write letters to their governor, senators and assemblymen; friends and family were also encouraged to take part. If they chose not to write their own letters, they could simply sign the templates and mail, fax or email them.

“I want these letters to haunt them [lawmakers] in their sleep,” said USG President Jeffrey Akita about the letter-writing campaign.

Speakers stressed the idea that lawmakers do not care whether or not the students suffer due to the budget cuts because so few students become outraged enough to speak out against the issues or vote against their leaders.

The budget cuts will only compound in the coming years, resulting in higher tuition, lower standards of education and even more struggles for students who want to graduate on time. Representatives said that, because of this colossal drop in the quality of SUNY, many students might find that the only solution is to transfer to private institutions.

“My biggest concern is the quality of classes,” said USG Senator Daniel Graber after the protest. “Fortunately, I can afford another $300 next semester, but I can’t afford to have a sub-par education.”

Note: To all students who still want to have their voices heard, visit www.uupinfo.org or www.stonybrookusg.org to sign a letter to Governor Paterson. He can’t read, so be sure to send letters to your assemblyman and senator, too.