The Daily Aztec

Rhinos’ rampant rampage

by Bill Crotty

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Amid public outcry about the California State University tuition increase, state budget deficit and the likely unchanging supply of a harmless Category 1 drug across colleges in the CSU system, a recent situation of rampaging rhinos may further punish students.

Last Wednesday, the San Diego Zoo was expected to unveil a new and improved rhino exhibit, but the animals escaped in transit to the zoo at approximately 4:40 p.m. Tuesday evening near San Diego State at the corner of College Avenue and 54th Street. The three rhinos broke through what the ZooLogical society has since deemed “ineffective cages.”

Senior Truck Captain and Large Vehicle Specialist O’ Natural Smith-Light, who was driving the truck during the escape, said she pointed out a problem with the cages before leaving Kenya.

“I told them I wasn’t sure about the integrity of the cages,” she said. “There were various large windows that the animals could easily escape through.”

ZooLogical specialists argued tthe openings Smith-Light described had signs posted that the rhinos should have read, and that the society takes no responsibility because of the posted warnings.

Although the cause for their apparent rage is still unconfirmed, the rhino handlers at the scene said there was a faint musty smell, as though a dying breed of marsupial had recently passed through, unnoticed.

“I’m not sure where the musk came from, but I certainly don’t believe the source of the stench could survive very long because no species would reproduce with that,” ZooLogical animale lover Cindy McMacN’Cheese said. “Or maybe people around here are just used to the smell.”

After their daring escape from the transportation cages, the rhino family — male and female adults, and one baby — went right for their favorite food: koi fish. Expecting one fish to be too hot, one to be too cold and the last to be just right, this looked to be the end of the rhino rampage.

Wrong. As it turns out, koi fish are not very tasty and the rhino family decided to start an Occupy Scripps Cottage movement until more acceptably-tasting koi have been added to the pond.

In addition to hiring new officers to oversee police operations in the OSC region, the university has also been faced with collateral damage, the cost of which will be put on students.

During their gallop across campus, the rhinos caused an earthquake that temporarily shut off power in the school, causing thousands to believe terrorists were bombing the city (again). Fortunately, the elusive manner in which the collective 48,000 pounds of fury sprinted across campus caused significant damage to only a small area.

Preliminary damage reports say the section of campus around Love Library near Campanile Walkway will be closed for repairs, leaving students with only one place to exhibit free speech during the Spring semester: Manchester Hall.

“Most students don’t even know what Manchester Hall is,”  an anonymous university official said. “It should be interesting to see where people try to protest on campus now.”

—Followup reports are unlikely because of the fictional nature of this story. If you’re unsure why, please donate to the rhino foundation via PayPal to the editor’s personal email account as soon as possible.

He needs it. Erm, I mean they do.

The incredibly volatile landscape of intercollegiate athletics recently reverberated across Montezuma Mesa. Last week, reports surfaced that the San Diego State athletics department intends to become bi-coastal through two stunning
conference moves.
Football is leaving the Mountain West Conference in order to become a member of the Big East Conference in fall 2013. Other sports, however, will remain local and likely find a new home in the Big West Conference. As appealing as debating the effectiveness of the “big w-east” move is, something plenty of pundits will likely do, the intent of this column lies elsewhere.
A fundamental travesty occurred in the process of this move, a key stakeholder group was not consulted in the process of making a decision: Where was the student input?
According to KPBS, SDSU President Elliot Hirshman said “people both inside and outside the university got a chance to weigh in.” From that admission, one could reason the president’s office and the athletics department and other outside parties were heavily involved in reaching the multi-move decision, but what about the university’s students? Were the students provided their own capacity to respond or their own “chance to weigh in”?
Students are the essence of this university. They are also a considerable financial foundation of the athletic department. Wouldn’t a student referendum have accurately gauged the student body’s opinion on such a move? Moreover, wouldn’t involving this key stakeholder have legitimized the move overall?
Consider this move from a business perspective. In a financial exchange, when a person pays for something, he or she is assuming a piece of ownership of said item. With this consideration, the collective student body at SDSU is the primary investing group in the athletics department. Regardless of one’s athletic fervor, each SDSU student who contributed $175 to the Instructionally Related Activity Fees this fall owns a piece of the athletic department. Even if this money were to be thought of as charitable giving on the student’s part (which would make for some interesting public relations questioning of the athletics department on the legitimacy of the fees), then the donation would have to be reviewed by some emissaries of the student body.
Charities have boards of directors, and other mechanisms of review to ensure the finances are applied in an effective manner. If one is to assume a select group of students were secretly involved in the decision-making process, then how is this fair to every other fee-paying member of the student body?
Contrary to other claims, the City of San Diego, the athletics’ boosters, Aztec fans, former athletes or current employees in the athletics department are all considerably less financially connected to the athletic department than the student body is. We as a student body provide more funds to athletics than any other source of revenue.
According to USA Today, for the 2009 academic year, the operating revenue for the athletics department was moe than $32 million. Student fees accounted for more than $10 million, or 31 percent of this total operating revenue. The next largest source of revenue was direct institutional support, which totaled around $6 million, or almost 19 percent. Contributions, an oft cited source of funding, only totaled more than $3 million or around 9 percent.
If one assumes the boosters were involved in the decision-making process, something not altogether implausible, then why would a group that only accounts for 9 percent of the total investment receive more consideration than the whole of the student body? Are we to be deemed silent in the entire process, a higher power adjudicating the student body to be an ATM, merely a source of funding incapable of input? If that is the case, I’d like to petition for a full refund of my Instructionally Related Activity Fee.
To revert to the business world, an investment option that accounted for 30 percent ownership with no voting power would be deemed a terrible investment. Think of it as investing in a Chipotle restaurant with a group of friends (the students of SDSU) and hiring a manager to run the restaurant (the athletics department). Only after making a visit to your restaurant do you find the manager has implemented some hasty change and began selling pizza instead of burritos — something decidedly unChipotle-like.
Pizza may be a good realignment idea, potentially bringing in more revenue and perhaps appealing to a broader clientele, but those investors should be consulted in the decision-making process.
That business strategy also applies to the students of this university. College students are often cited as the group that benefits most from the athletics department’s moves, but in reality isn’t it the other way around? Students contribute incredible sums of money to subsidize the department, provide a passionate fan base and, through time, remain connected as a financial resource in the form of an alumni base.
An emerging trend in collegiate athletics is that public institutions are becoming increasingly reliant upon student fees as a significant source for funding of athletic
departments:
“More than half of athletic departments at public schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision were
subsidized by at least 26 percent
last year.”
This is not a critique of the intent, the move or the ambitions of the athletics department. My problem is with the decision-making process. Maybe I am operating in an ideal world and the practicality of involving the student body would be cumbersome, yet relying upon this excuse would vindicate any administrative body for continually excluding its student body in
major decisions.
Higher education inspires, empowers and creates viability of an ideal decision-making process, one where a variety of perspectives would be actively involved, especially from such a vital group of stakeholders that stand to benefit or suffer in terms of student fees.
Here’s the bottom line, athletics department: If we’re cutting you a check, don’t leave us stranded on the bench.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Leave a Comment

Commenting on our site is a privilege. We want our readers to add their point of view to every story but ask that they keep their comments relevant to the topic at hand. We will remove comments and possibly ban users who do the following: (1) Use vulgar or racist language, (2) Threaten harm of any sort to staff, commenters or the subject of an article, and (3) Leave spam in their comment. If you have questions about these rules, please contact our Editor in Chief at: editor@thedailyaztec.com

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.