Administrators rejected the two largest Student Association strategies to expand student space on campus last week.
After two years of lobbying and rhetoric, SA executives submitted a 22-page proposal laying out 10 ways administrators could open up space on campus for students. The University fully agreed to just one proposal, calling the plan’s centerpieces – opening up academic buildings for 24 hours and scrapping all fees for student organization events – impractical.
Provost Steven Lerman and Executive Vice President and Treasurer Lou Katz agreed through a formal letter to open up seven conference rooms in the Marvin Center for student use after business hours.
The University also agreed to extend Funger and Duques halls’ hours by four hours, to 2 a.m., starting Oct. 1.
GW will also begin splitting room reservation and technology fees with the SA to lift the burden off individual student groups.
Administrators cited security, housekeeping and energy concerns while dismissing SA President Ashwin Narla and Executive Vice President Abby Bergren’s call for 24-hour academic buildings. They also rejected the SA’s call for dining halls to open on weekends and for GW to renovate the Marvin Center third floor’s terrace into an indoor space.
“The short-term recommendations were all met, but a lot of the future recommendations are to be decided. We’re going to have those conversations,” Narla said.
The senior, whose campaign platform last spring largely emphasized increasing student space on campus, said he is not discouraged that the University did not commit to the plan’s long-term goals.
“It’s a step in the right direction,” Narla said. “But we’re going to continue the conversation, continue the work. This is great, but we still have some ways to go in the conversations.”
Under Lerman’s and Katz’s plan, the SA, instead of individual organizations, would shoulder an $8,000 annual fee, allowing groups to rent rooms and equipment for the entire year. Narla said he hopes to lower the cost to $4,000 so the SA can keep more money for allocations to student groups.
Narla and Bergren said they will keep pushing the University to share more of the costs related to room rentals, like the $80 microphone and $120 DVD player fees.
The administrators’ letter also outlined how they would use the vacant office spaces across campus that Narla identified as potential student hubs.
The International Services Office will leave its K Street office next month and move into Old Main, left empty after the GW Career Center moved over the summer. The old study abroad office, known as the Parsonage Building, located at 812 20th St., will undergo repairs.
Narla said he and Bergren want the 20,000-square-foot former study abroad office to go to students.
“They’re not going to necessarily include us in that conversation unless we really push for that,” Narla said, adding that he would like to advocate for the building to take on the Office of Veterans Services or become another hang-out space for multicultural students.
Bergren said the administration’s formal acknowledgement of the plan was a key achievement for the SA.
“It’s one of the more recent in our history where we brought up a student driven idea that wasn’t piggybacking onto a previous University initiative and seeing it though,” Bergren said. “It’s a great win for us and for students.”
The title of the article is a gross mischaracterization of the letter that I read in the article. It seems like the University accepted 40% of what the SA proposed and now it appears that the SA is going to negotiate on a couple of pieces.
After seeing the Hatchet write several editorials about the need for student space, I find it sad that they rip apart each SA president for pursuing the issue. Do they really expect the SA to get everything they ask for in negotiations? Getting more academic hours is a step in the right direction.
I agree, the headline seems a bit misleading as it sounds like much of this is still up for discussion. I think the university is moving in the right direction in this area, but clearly there is still more work to be done.
Personally, I think adding the Study Abroad building as student space is silly. It is not centrally located and and old, out of place building. Students would not naturally be attracted to using the space. We need to concentrate on converting more space in the center part of campus to student space.
That building should instead be used to bring more offices in rented space on campus. The move of ISO on campus is a strong move to centralize more student services.
What the SA should request is to move any department which has its own individual building in the middle of campus to move to where the career center used to be or to where the study abroad office used to me. Then the SA can use that building as student space. Or they could move the geography department from Old Main and put it where the study abroad office was. Then open up old main for students only. There is a lot of space in there for the old pool tables from the Marvin Center and you could even put a small food stand inside.
This is an abhorrent abuse of journalistic integrity. The article discusses numerous successes of the SA, and yet employs a title that deprives them of any credit.
The 2012-2013 Hatchet continues to be a sensationalist, muckraking tabloid. What on Earth happened? It used to be a great publication.
If you hope to improve your reputation on campus and elsewhere, make some attempt to get in touch with the student body. You publish our names when we run into UPD, you trash our student government, and you contribute to the ever-worsening stigma that higher education holds against GW.
Volume 109 is poison.
It’s ridiculous for the university to cite energy concerns for not keeping the buildings open later since they leave the lights on 24/7 anyways. Additionally, what do the technology costs go towards? It costs $120 to use one of the dvd players in a classroom? You could buy a new dvd player for that much.
Reason #893 that the Hatchet has diminished in quality over the years.
Talk about trying to sensationalize an article using the title. Not to mention “After two years of lobbying and rhetoric”.
This letter looks like something that is actually an accomplishment. Yes the university isn’t giving them everything, but of course, it’s the university. But the fact that I no longer have to get into arguments with technology people when they see my student org is using a computer to show our weekly agenda during meetings is great. Plus I’m tired of being in Gelman, Duques will be a good change.
Just get with it Hatchet, or really just stop publishing. Choose one, cause stuff like this does nothing good. In fact it just hurts students.
Wow. Once again, the Hatchet takes a glimpse of hope and positivity on campus and smashes it into little pieces. The title of this article is absolutely misleading and dishonest.
You wonder why GW drops in national rankings? Because you make everything at the university out to be miserable little failures. This “newspaper” is the only failure that I see.
2nd james and will. there must be a session during hatchet orientation titled “always complain and paint things in a negative light, no matter what! remember, we’re an independent paper!”
It’s unfortunate to see such a frame on the topic via your title. Ashwin’s quotes don’t seem to support what the rest of the article was saying. Good to compare what WRGW had to say about the same topic. Different angle…
http://www.wrgwnews.com/2012/09/by-chris-evans-its-all-about-continuing.html
The Hatchet has turned into a pessimistic organization that ignores any of the positives that the SA has achieved. The Duques victory is amazing and unprecedented, and was a main goal of the SA executive.
Hatchet- you need to stop misleading readers and wake up: this was a huge victory for every student organization on campus.