$300,000 could have better served campus safety

Editor:In discussing the U’s expenditures fighting the state Legislature over the campus gun policy, spokesperson Coralie Alder said in a KSL News Radio interview Tuesday, “We feel like this is a good use of the money.” I hope for her sake that she doesn’t really believe that line.

$300,000, and what does the U have to show for it? A 4-1 Utah Supreme Court decision abolishing the U’s gun ban. Only in Academia could $300,000 spent on such a dismal failure be considered “good use of the money.”

If the U were sincerely concerned about student safety, it could have spent that $300,000 hiring more police, increasing lighting on campus or adding more blue-light locations. Those are just a few examples of what “good use of the money” would really look like.

Please quit wasting time and money on this. The U’s gun ban was a clear violation of state law. And if you insist on burning money with this issue, at least stop insulting our intelligence by telling us this is money put to “good use.”

Brent Tenney?Senior, Information SystemsPresident of Second Amendment Students?