In Monday’s GSB executive debate, Daniel Fischer criticized various Crampton/Edwards proposals by saying they can’t be accomplished in one year. He’s right, although I see that as a positive thing. GSB needs long-term planning in order to accomplish more than the usual tuition lobbying and funding allocations. Each year, GSB lobbies for lower tuition, then returns to the student body when tuition goes up and says, “It could be worse.”

We need an executive team that has the vision to launch long-term initiatives to impact not just tuition, but to lower the overall cost of attendance by lowering fees and increasing scholarship opportunities, and to increase the quality of education. For example, at last Thursday’s Student’s Day at the state capitol, while ISU and UNI student leaders lobbied for lower tuition, University of Iowa students chose to promote a bill involving landlord-tenant relations, a move that will potentially lower apartment housing costs for U of I students.

The Fischer-Luttrell slate appears to have a much-too-limited view of the impact GSB can have. Several times during the debate, they seemed to focus on why proposed ideas wouldn’t work, instead of promoting ideas that will work. I want a GSB leadership that is willing to explore all options, rather than rejecting ideas outright. The Fischer-Luttrell slate would be competent and efficient. Crampton-Edwards, though, would go beyond that and bring an ambitious, creative vision to GSB. The deciding factor for me is that Fischer-Luttrell seem to be looking one year ahead, while Crampton-Edwards seem to be looking five years ahead.

John Wilson

Senior

Journalism and Mass Communication