|
|
|
|
|
24 January 2003
uwRyan.com This website is meant to provide value to UW student by delivering information. It shares its name with the column that I write for Imprint. Please provide feedback on what I write as well as give me suggestions of topics to cover. You can send e-mail to me to ryan[at]uwryan[dot]com.
uwstudent.org
Federation of Students 
|
Feds and UW playing the public
The issue of control of campus bars has polarized the Feds and the university administration. Much of it is being played out in public as well as in a less public legal wrangle. In a January 7 press release, the Feds stated that "Contrary to media information, the incident occurred in a parking lot (Lot R) on the university campus and NOT in or at Federation Hall." None of the coverage, however, in The Record, Imprint, or uwstudent.org reported that anyone was beaten at Fed Hall. This statement was made the day after UW administration first gave the Feds the option of accepting a new management structure or no longer being able to serve alcohol. It seems that Feds was attempting to distance itself from the assault without sharing the situation with the students. Only on Thursday, when The Record reported the new management structure, did the Feds start talking about it to students. This is ironic, given that Feds complain, (and rightly so), that the university told The Record about the early Bomber closure about an hour before it happened and the Feds found out. It's clear that UW wanted The Record to be at the Bomber to report on the closure, but Feds haven't provided an explanation for keeping students in the dark. In their January 9 press release, the Feds said "If the establishments were closed, almost 150 students would be put out of work..." Eleven days later, that changed to "...over 150 students stand to lose jobs..." in the subhead, "...approximately 150..." in the body and then quoted "'...they've also fired 150 students from their jobs,' said Koprowski." The Record on Tuesday then reported it as "...more than 150 students..." On Tuesday, the day after the last press release, Feds VPAF Chris Di Lullo stated the number of employees at Fed Hall was 70 and that The Bombshelter employed "60 to 67." The sum of these two numbers is 137, which means either that Feds have exaggerated, or employees in other businesses stand to lose their jobs as well. Over time, the university has appeared to change its story, which the Feds have been eager to highlight. When the interim management structure became public, on January 9, The Record quoted university spokesman Martin Van Nierop saying, "These pubs are generally well-run with good processes and controls" and "They have many hours of training and they are very responsible." This tone is very different than Tuesday's release from the unversity which said "We undertook this work because of increasing concerns about the management practices at these two facilities, and the way in which those practices may compromise the safety and security of our students." |
Sifting through the rhetoricThe Federation of Students has posted sheets on an a-frame bulletin board titled "Bomber Closure and University Lies." Feds characterize four statements by the university as lies, and dispute them by giving a related version of the issue. How much confidence can we have in Feds' version of events; it is in their interest to descredit the university. Here we will look at the four issues and explore the differences in the statements. 1 - The Feds quote provost Amit Chakma's version of events about the meeting he requested on Monday that the Feds refused to attend. Chakma states that he offered alternative times to meet and offered to come to the SLC to meet with them. Feds disputes this, saying that no alternative meeting times were offered and state that requests for an agenda were refused. This is a case of one side's word against the other's, and this wrangling is closely related to the main issue of control of campus bars. 2 - Feds took a quote from Martin Van Nierop stating the university's concern about safety in the bars, and juxtapose it with UW's interim manager for Feds bars Mark Murdoch's report on the operation of the bars. Murdoch's report described the bars as "well run" and "the best place for our students." Van Nierop points out that this report refers to the week of January 6 and not the bars' operations at other times. The period in question is the week following the New Year's party, during which a man was beaten into a coma. This could have affected how closely procedures were followed. 3 - Feds disputes Bud Walker's statement that there was no sign-in on New Year's Eve by stating that the sign-in procedure had been replaced by a system that swipes the magnetic bar on drivers' licences. The two statements use sign-in with a different meaning. Walker uses it to refer to a system where non-UW guests are signed in by their UW student hosts; Feds uses it to refer to the recording of licence information of each person as he enters the bar. 4 - Van Nierop is quoted as saying there was no manager at Fed Hall on New Year's. Feds say that they had two interim managers. Here the university is trying to say that not having a full-time manager means that there is no manager; Feds said that their two student part-time managers each have about four years of experience and can manage a night at Fed Hall.
|