The April 13 edition of The Collegian includes excellent coverage on the budget cuts being made at South Dakota State University, thanks to the legislature.

It is worth noting that South Dakota has neither a state personal income tax nor a corporate income tax. It also does not tax sales made in the state by entities outside the state, as in the case of Internet sales. The income tax lost by one vote in the early 1970s and has not gained traction since then. Former Gov. Bill Janklow made a valiant but unsuccessful effort to broaden the sales tax to include companies that compete with South Dakota businesses but do not have to collect the tax.

If we are not willing to pay (or collect) taxes, then massive budget cuts will continue in South Dakota. Nationally, if we see tax cutting as a goal, we will see massive cuts in federal spending. Land grant universities, such as SDSU, receive millions in federal dollars, so SDSU may have seen only a glimpse of what is yet to come.

Congratulations on an excellent newspaper.

Sincerely,

Allan Burke
SDSU 1970

The column “Jacks React” was clever and fun except for the last entry. That one crossed the line. It featured a smiling First Lady Jackie Kennedy and her answer to the question “Where will you be going for the coming semester break?” The written response “My husband and I are going down to Dallas, Texas” was not funny and it was not in good fun. The cold blooded murder of one’s husband is not a subject for laughter and neither is the assassination of a country’s president. I was very saddened upon reading it. An apology is due to your readers.

Yvonne R. Fetzer

Brookings

At a time when more and more young people cannot afford health care due to increasing costs and a struggling economy, the House leadership voted to completely gut the programs that provide preventive care, including birth control, lifesaving cancer screenings, and testing for sexually transmitted infections (including HIV) to millions of people. These cuts will directly affect the family planning clinic on campus and 14 other Title X-supported clinics in South Dakota.

If they really cared about saving money, they would know that family planning programs like Title X are fiscally sound. For every public dollar invested in family planning, taxpayers save nearly $4. Yet, 240 members of Congress don’t seem to care.

This is not just a women’s issue. All students need to be aware of this attack on prevention, under the guise of “budget cuts.” Being able to remain STI and baby-free requires responsibility of all parties involved.

We need to send a message to the extreme House leadership to get back to what they promised to do 8212; create jobs and fix the American economy. I urge Senators Johnson and Thune to reject this assault on prevention and restore Title X funding to South Dakota.

Michael VanBemmel

Senior

Computer Science

To whom it may concern:

I am writing this letter on behalf of the majority of students residing in the residential halls, many of whom have formally signed a petition endorsing this letter. In the past two years of on campus residency, I have become increasingly concerned with a number of policies implemented by SDSU Residential Life. On behalf of the frustrated and concerned students, I ask for evaluation of the policies implemented by the Residential Life organization.

I would like to begin by addressing the policy of room and bag searches. The way residential life members have handled this matter is unacceptable. As state employees, without a warrant, entering dorm rooms for any reason, other than for health and safety searches without ample notice, is a violation of the 4th Amendment. This was determined by the case of Ohio v. Ellis. If one court case was not enough, in January 2011, Commonwealth v. Daniel Carr upheld this same principle in a Federal district court that residential life staff and police cannot search dorm rooms without warrants.
My concern with bag searches is particularly strong. As I am sure every student and residential life staff member is aware, on Hobo Day, “mandatory bag searches” were conducted as you entered the dorms. This is illegal for the university to do. It is not the right of the university to search students’ bags. It is the students’ right to not be subject to unlawful search and seizure.

At this time, I wish to bring up a very serious, and often overlooked, issue. I wish to ask how the cost of our rooms is at such high rates. Considering the weeks we get to live here, the cost per month is $405 to live in Binnewies (one of the cheaper dorms on campus). Jackrabbit Village and Caldwell are $490/month. A single in Jackrabbit Village is $540. I have already found many apartments and houses off campus that run anywhere from $275 to $350. On campus, we do not use a stove or any other appliances to cook food. We have very limited square foot of our own space. When you divide the common areas among the students, it seems unreasonable to say we get our money’s worth. I am simply asking for public justification for the steep prices on campus when students are mandated to live here for two years. I tend to believe if you are “forced” to do something; it should have amble reasoning behind it.

I would next like to address the problem of being allowed only one fridge in our dorms. Upon discussion with residential assistants and RHDs, it was explained the reasoning for this is due to power draw. If this is the case, I feel this decision may have been made without considering other such sources of power draw. A fridge is rated at 1 – 1.5 amps, equivalent to 2 – 3 60-watt bulbs. A television has a draw of 1.5 – 3.0 amps. A microwave, even limited at the size of 700 watts, as stated in the Residential Life Handbook, produces 6 amps. So quit sidestepping the issue, this policy is nonsense. In the foreseeable future, the energy consumption of the dorms residents will not decrease. This issue needs to be addressed in a proactive, logical manner.

Finally I would like to address the key locks on the fire exits. My RHD informed me this is for safety measures.  It is argued that this forces people that have intent to cause harm to walk past the front desk. However, residents simply let other people in, or the door is pried open.  Therefore, how has this increased security? Plus, is the front desk expected to know who has the intent to enter the building to do harm or who is simply entering to go to their own room or visit a resident? Now consider someone who is in a dangerous situation outside, is it better to have one entrance or multiple entrances to enter a safe building?  This policy, while good in intentions, is flawed and has led to more headaches than solutions.  Is there truly harm done by allowing access to students at fire exits?

On this note, you might find students are more responsive when they are treated as adults, as they legally are, rather than sheep being herded without a say in the direction they are headed. History brings out numerous examples of the problems of non-representative, unjustified policies. Please, ask our opinion first, do not just enforce policies. This is a public university; act in a democratic manner that has the concern of students in mind. Then finally when a policy is enacted, explain your reasoning publicly. Case in point, “Effective January 1, these doors will be permanently locked” was not adequate explanation. Statements like this have the tendency to agitate an already irritated group of young adults.

Regards,
Aaron Peterson

While it guaranteed that preventive care, including lifesaving screenings for breast and cervical cancer, be available at no cost, it did not guarantee that birth control be included in the definition of “preventive care” and therefore be available at no cost.

Right now, government officials in Washington, D.C. and other medical experts are deciding whether no-cost birth control will be part of the new health-care system.

More than half of women aged 18 – 34 say that the cost of prescription birth control has made it difficult for them to use birth control consistently. Removing the economic barrier to birth control would have a major impact on young people’s lives.

I believe that improving women’s access to birth control is one of the most crucial means of preventing unintended pregnancy and thereby reduce the need for abortion. Moreover, it will enable women to make responsible decisions about their health care.

Campus Women’s Coalition is currently collecting signatures in support of the movement. Please join us in calling on our decision-makers to support no-cost birth control.  Contact me at mjmiles@jacks.sdstate.edu to sign the petition or take action by texting bc4me to 49609.

Molly Miles
Campus Women’s
Coalition President