We’ve all heard by now that the vote on recreational renovations was “passed” by students. If you can call 52 percent passing. My professors don’t. It’s also no secret that a lot of people are frustrated with the propaganda of the entire enterprise, which has been misleading and misrepresenting students from start to finish. Here are some fantastic examples, all taken from actual interviews and news reports printed by the Iowa State Daily, Des Moines Register, Ames Tribune and Inside Iowa State newsletter.

Mike Harvey, director of Recreation Services, said the state is not interested in using its funds to build non-academic buildings, and Government of the Student Body President Brian Phillips said private donors typically are not interested in paying for a project such as this.

At Iowa State alone, the state has committed $32 million for a new biorenewables research lab, the bulk of the money for a new $74.5 million chemistry building and much of the money needed for a $6.25 million addition to the design college. University officials aren’t about to back off from their top priority of increasing faculty pay to be more competitive with peer institutions, either, Harvey said.

Nobody else finds it incredibly important to invest 78 percent of frivolousness into this project. Not even the university itself thinks that the “competition” is stiff enough to shell out money that should be going to other priorities. In fact:

But when choosing a college, students tend to give greater weight to what job and internship opportunities are available, rather than opportunities to watch or participate in intramural sports – the kind of activities that occur at campus recreation facilities, according to surveys from higher education consultants at the Art & Science Group.

Some other things to consider:

“Harvey said the proposed renovations to State Gym and Beyer Hall are necessary because the buildings are in need of repair.”

“In all, Harvey said there is $10 million to $12 million in deferred maintenance work to be done. He said most of the cost of the renovations to the two buildings would go toward addressing the deferred maintenance and meeting the standards students and faculty are looking for.”

Total cost of the project: $52.8 million. Percentage of money spent on necessary maintenance and repair according to Mike Harvey: 22 percent. An extra $40 million spent after necessity.

About 5,400 ISU students responded to an Internet survey in spring of 2006, and half said new or improved recreation facilities at Iowa State should be a high or very high priority. Iowa State has about 26,000 students.

A total of 6,466 students participated in the online vote this week, with 52.1 percent, or 3,369 who voted yes, and 47.9 percent, or 3,097 who voted against the fees.

If you thought the numbers last week were weak, just consider that fewer students voted in the survey that made this an idea, and only half of them thought it was important.

“Everyone has been supportive of it, everyone believes that recreation is important, but how do you balance that with cost? Cost is important. Recreation is critical to the recruitment of students to campuses, it’s critical to their out-of-class learning, their out-of-class experiences, their enjoyment. It’s even been linked to the success of the students academically and it’s part of that whole, holistical body experience at the university.” -Mike Harvey

To sum up, we’ll just rely on this little tidbit of hypocrisy:

Phillips said he supported student-fee increases rather than tuition increases because students have more control over the fees and are part of a committee that makes recommendations to administrators about fees.

But.

The vote was considered an advisory opinion, and was not required for ISU officials to move forward.

Greenlee said if the vote passes and a design firm is hired, that firm might change the project, but “it will be something at least comparable to what is proposed.”

The end result of all this information is that we, as students, really don’t have a say in this decision. They’re going to do what they want and charge us for it anyway, because nobody else will pay for their pissing contest. The plans are overzealous, the fees are too heavy – either we will pay for something we don’t get to use, or we’re forcing future students to pay for something they didn’t “vote” on – and propaganda has made this out to be an imperative project when it’s not.

What we have also failed to mention here is where the space for all these new additions will come from, the amount of construction on campus for years to come – that’s a sexy image – and why student money is being focused on hot tubs and multi-purpose rooms instead of more pressing issues like parking, and that we’re among the most indebted students in the nation when we graduate.

So, what are we going to do about the fact that there’s technically nothing we can do to prevent officials from going forward anyway? There’s an entire Facebook group dedicated to opposing this project, and more students on campus that find the idea rejectable as well. Scrap the idea or make it more practical. There’s a nice little free speech zone in front of the library intended to give students a voice – why not organize and use it? I’d miss class to show up – and if the polls are correct, maybe thousands of others will as well.

– Luci Van Scoy is a junior in anthropology from Newton.