See Full HTML Site

Daily Nebraskan > Opinion

STAFF ED: UPC should acknowledge lies

By

Published: Sunday, February 28, 2010

Updated: Monday, March 8, 2010

On Tuesday, Feb. 24, the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska discussed the issue of cultural sensitivity at length. At GREAT length, and eventually passed a bill concerning it.

Because of this lengthy, heated discussion, many forgot what else went on during that meeting. One of the issues discussed was approval of the University Program Council's request for a $40,000 budget increase. After a short bout of questioning, UPC's budget request was approved, bringing its total budget to more than $200,000.

There is one glaring problem with UPC's budget increase: It is based on lies, and the organization does not deserve a single penny of it.

During the hearing, members of UPC were questioned about some facts concerning UPC's poor handling of a concert and the student funds used to pay for it, as reported in the Daily Nebraskan. UPC stated the facts in the story were wrong and the UPC sources quoted in the article did not remember saying the things they were quoted saying. UPC also claimed the numbers used were wrong and said they didn't even have the official figures yet, because The Bourbon had not sent them all of the information.

Based on the denial of the accuracy of the DN story, as well as a healthy amount of DN-bashing done by other members of the senate that night, the senate was willing to accept that UPC was perfectly deserving of the budget increase and capable of managing its funds.

All of the information provided by UPC against the DN's report is sheer lies. We would like to think that Hans Larsen and Lauren Jewell remember full well what they told our reporter, and decided to deny it for political reasons. Their quotes are written down in the reporter's notebook if they need to jog their memories. As to the falseness of the numbers, maybe the UPC representatives should have thought before they sent the reporter the exact numbers they claimed they didn't have in an e-mail still in the reporter's inbox, fully intact and correctly reported on. Also, an anonymous source within UPC told the DN there were meetings to discuss those very numbers, as well as the other issues reported on in the DN story.

Perhaps they forgot they were being recorded by the very publication they were contradicting. Perhaps UPC was not aware their lies would be known by people outside the room.

Your lies benefit your organization with money it doesn't deserve and doesn't know how to properly use, while hurting the students of this university.

This artic le was updated on March 8, 2010.

opinion@dailynebraskan.com

 

Related Articles

Comments

13 comments
Anonymous
Mon Mar 15 2010 10:05
DN staff, you need to get rid of "Most Commented" and go back to "Most Recently Commented".
Concerned Student
Tue Mar 9 2010 01:54
1. This is a Editorial, not an article. The DN has a right to say what it said.

2. The fact that the sources from UPC claim to not remember saying what they have said when the reporters have their notes proving this, as well as the 'missing email' which is still in the inbox and could be printed out as proof shows that UPC did in fact and knowingly lie to deceive ASUN to get their budget increase.

3. This means that the DN was right in shedding light on the way UPC has been spending its money. if UPC really wanted the budget increase it would have been wise for them to acknowledge these faults and come up with a plan of how to not repeat their same mistakes and then present it to ASUN to show they can in fact manage their spending. not resort to lying to get their way.

4. Just because student fee fund the DN (if true) doesn't mean that the DN is in the same capacity as UPC. The Function of the Daily Nebraskan is to bring students the news and facts. Which apparently was done here in the article this EDITORIAL refers to. If this weren't so the DN would lose its journalistic integrity as would any other newspaper, student-run or professional.

5. Yes, the last couple of sentences were in my opinion a little much but overall the point of this editorial was clear. ASUN should have looked into the matter a lot closer.

Anonymous
Tue Mar 2 2010 14:29
wow this is very TACKY.
Anonymous
Tue Mar 2 2010 09:30
Good luck Suh!!
Too bad
Tue Mar 2 2010 00:19
Ever heard you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? This article is vinegar and comes off as nothing but hot headedness. This could have been effective, but is clearly written by one person that has an issue. I know what a staff editorial is supposed to read like as I have written many before, this just sounds like someone's pissed off comment on a message board, not worthy of posting in the DN, and much more, I would hope the editor would create higher standards for this publication; use some restraint, editing, strategy. Shame on you writer of this article--you should have just posted your name instead of hiding your wimpy ego behind the Daily Nebraskan's opinion page. I agree with one of the above posters, note to self: don't piss off anyone at the DN.
Ndamukong Suh
Mon Mar 1 2010 15:29
If possible could you just use your name Casey? Thanks Sir..

Additionally, the issue here is student organizations not being able to work together, not the fact an article is being disputed. What is the function of your paper? If in fact student fees fund the Daily Nebraskan organization, wouldn't it make sense you guys work with UPC? For example, DN advertises their events and in return receive interviews from the bands or something?

ASUN, UPC, and the DN are not separate entities. The sole reason for them functioning is to serve the people who fund them, the students. Stop quarreling over this. Before getting this $40,000, why wouldn't UPC be trying to bring the best possible events that they could? Perhaps UPC's funds really were not enough to bring them?

Lastly, the DN writers get actually get PAID to do their work.

Wish me luck in the draft!

- SUH

Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 15:04
One can obviously figure out from this article that the writer is disgruntled and has a personal vendetta against UPC. For starters he/she didn't even have the balls to put their own name on the article. It's not UPC's fault that they are trying to expand their program with the support of the student body.

But it's okay DN you can keep telling yourselves that your articles are top notch and readers don't just take your paper for the crossword puzzle. Maybe one day if you're lucky you can land a job writing for the Lincoln Journal Star.

Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 14:56
i would much rather see my funds go to UPC to bring in some fun and exciting things than seeing them wasted on a godawful school newspaper like the DN
Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 14:44
The issue here is not a reporting dispute. Yes the article was biased, it is a staff editorial. They are opinionated by nature. The issue here is that UPC stoneface lied to ASUN in order to procure more money than the 160,000 dollars they were already allotted. Had they had a good reason to need those funds, this would not be an issue. But since they had to resort to lying, they do not deserve it. They essentially stole from the student body by way of fraud.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 14:30
The editor and entire staff should be 100% embarrassed about this article.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 11:53
Wow.
Calling for a boycott of all UPC events because of a reporting dispute? That doesn't seem ridiculous at all! Lesson learned: never cross one of the DN staffers. They'll find a way to call you deceitful in their staff ed in the name of news, truth and campus justice.
Way to stay classy, DN!
Andy Boyle
Mon Mar 1 2010 10:56
Hey anonymous -- it's not an article. It's an editorial. An opinion piece. Meant to be biased. Nothing inappropriate about it. FYI.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 03:18
OK, a few thoughts. But first, I agree with the beginning of this article - although the issue of cultural (in)sensitivity is extremely important, allocating about $18.4 million dollars of student fees is one of ASUN's biggest responsibilities and deserves more attention.

1) That having been said, this article is largely biased, inappropriate, and incorrect. From an ASUN perspective, the UPC debate was continued from the week before, which had quite a lot (almost an hour) of discussion. To say it is rushed is simply not true.

2) Now if you have problems with the actual allocation, it's important to at least acknowledge the reasoning. That reasoning is that the UPC budget is far under-funded, especially in comparison with other schools that have hundreds of thousands of dollars to work with. An increase was allocated so that UPC could work with some bigger talents and (hopefully) garner bigger audiences. Considering that UPC is (potentially) one of the easiest ways for students to see their fees going into actions that they can get excited about (hopefully resulting in more involvement, more on-campus activity, and less off-campus underage drinking -- not that that's always a bad thing), we should all be in support of this rather minimal increase.

3) The issue with the Bourbon Theater seems to have a lot of sides, none of which I can personally dispute. But it's important to know that their relationship is positive and working - and they'll continue to work together in the future. If you honestly think a hundred dollars or so is worth giving back $40,000, I think you're being a bit haste.

Overall, I really encourage the DN to realize that you can criticize things happening at UNL without completely alienating huge parts of campus. True, UPC could do better - they haven't kept the best records, and I have my own doubts about the effectiveness of its leadership - but they also deserve a chance (their first chance) to work with the money they need to make a better impact on campus. More level-headedness really would add to your legitimacy, DN staff.

Most Popular

Most Commented