Miami Herald humor columnist Dave Barry has been running a tongue-in-cheek U.S. presidential campaign for years.
As president, Barry promises (among other things) to return from vacation within 100 days of being elected to check the mail. One of his campaign’s underlying philosophies is: “ENOUGH with presidents playing golf.”
Obviously, Barry says nothing serious about becoming president?he gets paid to say humorous things. However, Barry’s campaign Web site has one message that university goers everywhere could benefit from hearing.
Speaking of taxes, Barry says, “A lot of my opponents have been going around spouting harebrained pie-in the-sky tax schemes that promise something for nothing. Well, it’s time for a reality check.”
For many university types?both students and faculty members?such a reality check couldn’t hurt. The realities are these: When you want a change on campus, don’t expect something for nothing. And without big changes, expect very little to change.
University of Florida students George Kramer and Ian Lane needed a reality check when they ran for student government offices in 2000.
According to UF’s campus newspaper, The Florida Alligator, Kramer’s platform included setting up a new campus radio station, extending computer and library hours, increasing the amount of free computer services, increasing the number of bus routes and increasing funding for student government programs. Note the generous use of the word “increase” and the absence of information detailing how to fund these initiatives.
Lane was working to get more free phones, cheaper dining options, increased nighttime campus patrol routes, extended lab hours and increased campus benefits. He also wanted “to help stop tuition increases,” he said.
Both Kramer and Lane promoted platforms that reflect the attitude of many university students?give me better services, and charge me less for it. Unfortunately, such arrangements exist only in the world of fad dieting, where a person can “take off those unwanted pounds” by doing very little?or even nothing.
University administrators must find it tough to please everyone. They have thousands of individuals and groups to appease, and each of these organizations has a different idea of how to best use scarce resources.
And universities are not alone. Any large organization will find pleasing everyone a difficult, if not impossible, task. Multi-national corporation Procter & Gamble certainly understands the challenge of trying to placate people with diverse opinions. Its experience with the “Dr. Laura Show” illustrates the difficultly of making everybody happy.
When Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s television show premiered, gay activists threatened to boycott Procter & Gamble products if the company did not pull its advertising during Dr. Laura’s show. P&G, afraid of losing potential consumers, pulled the ads. A Web site critical of Dr. Laura immediately made P&G its poster child, boldly displaying the P&G logo next to the words of other anti-Laura activists. One of these anti Laurites supporting P&G’s move was actress Susan Sarandon.
Soon after P&G withdrew support for Dr. Laura, pro family groups began calling the company to complain, threatening to boycott. A concerned P&G quickly flew a group of executives to meet with representatives from several pro-family lobbies. The pro-family people were fuming because of P&G’s Dr. Laura advertising policy.
So within a matter of weeks, both the liberal left and the religious right had threatened to boycott P&G products.
Only a few weeks after the Dr. Laura incident, yet another group gathered in New York to protest against P&G. This group of demonstrators included members of the Screen Actors Guild who were upset that P&G had used non union actors during the SAG strike. Among those protesting P&G were Robert Klein, Tim Robbins?and Susan Sarandon.
Apparently, whether fickle Sarandon loves or hates P&G depends on which cause she is supporting at the time. Poor P&G just can’t seem to win.
Like P&G, the University of Utah has a wide assortment of people and groups to please. How can the school possibly please everyone? The truth is, it can’t.
Take, for example, the ever present parking problem. Suppose the university wanted to build a multi-level parking structure. What problems would it run into?
In order to build the structure, the university would most likely have to increase student fees or the price of parking permits. Both of those propositions would surely meet a wall of opposition from students who are, in reality, strapped for cash.
If the school decided to build the structure over a grassy area, those concerned with air, trees and green spaces would certainly erupt with displeasure.
If the school decided to build over an existing parking lot, students and faculty members would likely complain about the temporary loss of hundreds of parking spots.
If the school decided to build anywhere at all, neighbors would probably complain about the noise, drivers would likely grumble because of the dust, and some students and faculty would almost certainly object to the inconvenience.
In effect, the university could never find a way to please everyone.
Hopefully, U students and faculty members will always voice their concerns about the school’s problems. Their feedback will help administrators realize the issues that need to be resolved. Their complaints?that they are inconvenienced, overburdened or underpaid?comprise the first steps toward finding solutions.
But they will also have to realize that almost every gain comes with a commensurate concession of time, money or convenience. Until they are ready to accept these concessions, university-goers who want to change “the way things are” may have to take to heart Dave Barry’s presidential campaign slogan: “It’s time we demanded less.”
Mike welcomes feedback at: [email protected] or send letters to: [email protected].