An effective writer will present facts on both sides of an issue and explain why his or her opinion is better.

At the very least, a writer is expected to argue for his or her opinion using facts.

Ben Studenski’s article on Wed., Dec. 9, titled “GSB Senators are Lacking Backbone” crossed a critical line.

Instead of just presenting the facts that agree with his position, he presented fabrications and misrepresentations of the truth.

In his last opinion article, regarding the existence of GSB specialty seats, he wrote, “If GSB can’t squarely discuss controversial issues, why not let the student body make the decision.”

In two instances in the past two years students have made a decision on specialty seats. They decided to keep them.

Last year, Ben Studenski was a member of the GSB Senate that ratified the new constitution of the GSB. Two-thirds of the GSB and a majority of the student body ratified that constitution.

It specifically states that specialty seats are to exist and that the GSB must set a registration process that enables students to forgo their college or living area vote in order to vote for a specialty seat representative.

Some might argue that many of the students that voted on the constitution were ill-informed, and they may be correct.

However, in a highly publicized election two years ago, two students ran for specialty seats with the express purpose of eliminating them.

Large numbers of students switched their votes to specialty seat votes specifically to defeat those candidates. Many of the students who voted to keep the specialty seats were not members of specialty seat populations. Those candidates lost and, true to the wishes of the students, specialty seats survived.

So why do ISU students want specialty seats? There is, of course, a multitude of reasons; we will try to express a few of the most common ones.

The most obvious is that ISU students appreciate diversity and want to make sure that everyone has a voice. Another reason is what we shall call the “parking lot theory.”

If it weren’t for those little blue signs that reserve parking spots for the disabled, most people wouldn’t leave those spots open for the disabled.

It’s not because they are bad people, but because we often fail to think of the needs of those who are different from us without a little prompting.

The same is true of GSB Senators.

Most of us are English-speaking, able-bodied students between the ages of 18-24, just like the “average” ISU student. If it weren’t for the disabilities senator, how often might we forget to think, “will this event be accessible to people in wheelchairs?”

If it weren’t for the international senators, how many of us would stop to consider the effects of the Asian economic crisis on ISU students?

We all try to do our best to represent all of the students, however we are only human.

We respect the right of Ben Studenski to hold whatever opinion he chooses, however, that is not the issue at hand.

The problem with his article is the method he uses to present his opinions. If his article had been written by anyone else, the false information would have been considered the product of an uninformed, apathetic researcher.

However, as an intelligent person and a former GSB senator, he should have been fully aware that several of his statements had no basis in reality.

It seems that Benjamin Studenski feels that he is leading the majority of students into a courageous battle against the hideous monster called the GSB.

In the case of specialty seats, the GSB does represent the majority of ISU students, and Mr. Studenski is off tilting at windmills.

---

Anthony Bateza

Sophomore

Biochemistry

---

Wade Demmer

Junior

Computer engineering