It has come to my attention that Student Association Executive Vice President Kyle Boyer, with the approval of several senators, is considering a major initiative to reduce the library fee from $50 to $25 dollars and to transform that fee from an opt-out donation to a mandatory fee added to each student’s tuition bill.

The nature of the library donation is unclear to most students and parents, who are left unsure about whether the donation is the library’s source for most, all or only a fraction of its funds. This needs to be answered before any changes are made to the fee.

Right now, the library fee funds the library’s budget. And because the main source of library revenue is from an opt-out donation, the library has an inconsistent budget from year to year. Parents and students that opt out bear the weight of the blame for the library’s struggles, but this is completely unfair.

The purpose of funding the library with donations, according to Boyer, was to show that “students supported the library on their own” separate from tuition. This system, built around a misguided PR attempt to show confidence in the library, has left the library with an inconsistent budget. Given this information, the University has only two reasonable choices.

On the one hand, if GW hopes to demonstrate that SJT’s mission still is worth the effort, the fee must be changed from an opt-out to an opt-in donation, since a conscientious student body shouldn’t have to be tricked into supporting the library through a misleading opt-out system.

With the current system, parents and students that are concerned with saving money will opt out, while parents confused about the fee or unaware of its existence completely foot the main thrust of library funding at GW. Unless these parents and students are voluntarily and knowingly handing their money over, the collection system is disingenuous and immoral.

On the other hand, if the University wants to provide the library with a consistent budget and prove that GW’s mission to become a research institute is a priority, the fee must be removed completely, leaving the library’s budget to be determined in the same manner every other budget is: through student tuition.

The University surely does not wish to be perceived as an institution that bleeds its library funding out of students through means separate from student tuition. Any other solutions, including Boyer’s misguided albeit fiscally sound proposal, sends a mixed message to library administrators and to the student body at large about what priority the library is given.

The writer, a senior majoring in political science and philosophy, is editor-in-chief of The GW Patriot.