This letter is a response to the column "In Our Opinion: Student Government not open about newspaper cancellation", published September 9, 2015.
On Wednesday, the editorial board of The Daily Gamecock objected to Student Government’s cancellation of the readership program, and despite my love of the program, I find the disdain shown by this paper completely unfounded. I believe the program was one of the most beneficial programs Student Government provided. In fact last year, I spent time as the paperboy in order to insure the program’s operation, and upon noticing the cancellation, I spoke directly with Student Body President Jonathan Kaufman to express my frustrations.
Even though I disagree with Student Government, the reaction of the editorial board confounded me. First, this conversation is occurring in the fourth week of school. To suggest that cancellation was a massive slight against the student body ignores the fact that the decision went largely unnoticed by students, including members of the editorial board, for so long.
Secondly, Student Government is not tasked with informing our students on current events; instead, this paper is designed to fulfill that role. At the beginning of the semester, this paper chose to curtail its own circulation. Can this paper cry foul when Student Government fails to carry out the exact duty this paper is responsible for?
Lastly, the editorial board based its frustration on Student Government’s lack of transparency. Yet, the article which ran on the issue included quotes from every level of the Student Government involved with the decision (namely the student body president, treasurer and a senator). Perplexed on the meaning of transparency, we could, perhaps, look to the actions of this paper. When drastically reducing its circulation, this paper neither consulted its readers nor provided any explanation on the reallocation of the funds. These seem to be the exact charges leveled against Student Government.
Students should mourn the loss of an important service, but they cannot claim that the decision was inappropriate.
David Leggett is a fourth-year political science and economics student.