Page 4
Editorial
No
fee
Eight dollars a month for parking is too much on a
college campus.
Yet this is the very amount the administration is
presently considering to charge next year. The rate hike
will affect not only students, but faculty and staff as
well.
This is a huge increase over the $25 currently being
charged for an entire school year. The concept at work
here is since there is such a huge demand for parking, it
is more valuable. Since parking is more valuable, people
will pay more for it. Therefore, raise the price. This is a
very capitalistic idea.
It is not, however, logical on a college campus for a
number of reasons.
First, it is true that if things are in large demand, the
price can be raised and people will still pay it if they want
the product or service. But this campus is not a free
market economy and commuter students do not have the
option of refusing to park. They absolutely have to pay
the fee.
Second, things are generally cheaper in bulk when
there is cooperation involved. This is the theory behind
mass public transportation, cooperative buying and
community living. If this campus is a community, then
we should be working together. If more people are
parking than there should be a bigger pool of money
from which to make expansions and improvements.
It is true that the extra money will go to improvements
(after a trip down to University Park, and at their
discretion), but we all know that once something goes
up, it never comes back down. In fact, it usually keeps
going up. Long after the planned improvements are paid
for, Behrend students will still be paying the outrageous
fee.
Is this just a way to hide yet another tuition increase?
Is it possible that if no one paid their fee the
administration would see the error in their theory?
The Collegian
Published weekly by the students of Behrend College, Erie, PA (814)
Editor
Todd J. Irwin
OpJEd. Page Editor
Rob Prindle
News Editor
Tony Olivito
News Editor
Mark Owens
Entertainment Editor
Robb Frederick
Sports Editor
John Musser
Layout Editor
Chris Kocott
Photo Coordinator
Rick Brooks
Business Manager
Christie Redmond
Advisor
Dr. Mike Simmons
mion
parking
increase
898-6488
The Collegian's editorial
opinion is determined by the
editorial staff, with the editor
holding final responsibility.
Opinions expressed in The
Collegian are not necessarily
those of The Collegian or the
Pennsylvania State University.
Letter Policy: The Collegian
encourages letters on news
coverage, editorial conteiu and
university affairs. Letters should
be typewritten, double-spaced
and signed by no more than two
persons. Letters should be no
longer than 400 words. Letters
should include the semester and
major of the writer. All letters
should provide the address and
phone number of the writer for
verification of the letter. The
Collegian reserves the right to
edit letters for length and to
reject letters if they are libelous
or do not conform to standards
of good taste. Letters should be
submitted to The Collegian
office no latter than noon on
Monday prior to the desired
publication date.
The Collegian
Mike Royko
Free Expression's
Truly a Work of Art
by Mike Royko
I'm basically simple-minded when it comes to
visual art. My tastes run toward sunsets, desert
scenes, sailing ships and that sort of lowbrow
stuff, although I draw the line at clown portraits.
So as a lowbrow, I'll take the word of the
experts and critics that the late Robert
Mapplethorpe's controversial photography is
brilliant art.
On the other hand, even someone ignorant of
the finer points of art has a right to an opinion.
And you don't have to be Archie Bunker to think
that at least a few of Mapplethorpe's creations are
revolting and disgusting.
If an art expert spent a week trying to
persuade me that there is artistic merit in one
particular Mapplethorpe photograph, I would
listen and try to be open-minded.
But at the end of the week, I would say: "I
still think that a photo of one man making wee
wee in the mouth of another man is real sicko.
Go hang it on your own living room wall, if you
wish. I'd rather have a travel poster.''
So I can understand why some people in
Cincinnati are in an uproar because
Mapplethorpe's work is being shown at that
city's Contemporary Art Center.
There's nothing really wrong with an
occasional uproar over an art exhibit. If nothing
else, the publicity increases attendance at art
galleries and gets protesters out into the fresh air,
waving signs and shouting for the TV cameras.
If the right of artistic expression allows an art
center to show a few revolting photographs,
people have the right to march outside and shout:
’’That’s really icky."
But I think the prosecutors in Cincinnati are
being a bit silly to haul a grand jury to cluck
cluck at the exhibit and bring criminal charges
against the director of the museum.
All they've done is hype the exhibit and make
Cincinnati look like a big rube town, which I've
never thought it was. It's always struck me as
being a medium-sized rube town.
AU they’ve done is hype the
exhibit and make Cincinnati look
like a big rube town , which I’ve
never thought it was. It’s always
struck me as being a medium-sized
rube town.
In fact, I'm amazed. The same exhibit was
shown in Chicago, which is much bigger than
Cincinnati, and surely has even more self
appointed art censors. But there wasn't even a
minor fuss here.
I don't understand Chicago's indifference.
When a white art student displayed a painting of
the late Mayor Harold Washington wearing a
lady's undergarments, several Chicago aldermen
were so offended that they illegally seized the
painting. And there was picketing, chanting,
racial jibes and all the other elements of an
entertaining uproar.
Later, a black art student put up a display that
included an American flag on the floor -- sort of
like a throw rug - which brought out white
Wednesday, April 25, 1990
Mike Royko
politicians, military veterans and other instant
censors who put on fine performance for the TV
news shows.
What made Chicago's two artistic furors so
satisfying was that they sort of offset each other
and showed that no one group has a lock on
foolishness.
The black aldermen and their followers are
great believers in freedom. Except when freedom
applies to the right of an art student to create a
painting that offends them.
And the white politicians and their followers
also say they believe in what the flag represents -
- including freedom of artistic expression -
except when another art student's form of artistic
expression offends them.
' That’s why I find a certain malicious justice
in the reaction of the Cincinnati censors.
Mapplethorpe was gay, and much of his work
had homosexual themes, including some that is
kind of kinky. (The critics describe it as
homoerotic or sadomasochistic, but I prefer the
word "kinky" because it's easier to spell.)
Because he was gay, many gays view the
protests and censorship efforts as an attack on all
of them, their community, their lifestyles, etc.
And I'm sure that figures into the motives of
some of the protesters, and maybe some of
Cincinnati's politicians. As kinky as some of
Mapplethorpe's work is, they can tum to their
cable movie channels almost any night and see or
hear all sorts of behavior that is more bizarre
than those photos. But nobody is arresting the
cable company owners.
On the other hand, many gay oiganizations
and individuals, who defend the right to display
Mapplethorpe's work, were after Andy Rooney's
hide for expressing a few opinions they didn't
like.
In another case, their organized pressure
brought about changes in a planned TV script
that involved gays. Because they didn't want to
see it aired, they didn't want anyone else to see it.
They succeeded.
And if they don't like something they read,
they don't hesitate to organize letter and phone
campaigns to the writer's boss. Which is just
another form of attempted censorship.
Ah, but that's what makes this such a great
nation. Eventually, everybody's ox gets gored.