There wasn’t as much noise at this Occupy event as there was at the Oct. 13 march, but Occupy FAU drew over 70 students and faculty to its teach-in – plus, it clarified what it wanted.
The Wednesday event was meant to let people know what the group is all about, according to organizer Gonzalo Vizcardo.
The senior economics major told the UP that Occupy FAU wouldn’t make a list of demands. “That implies we want to take something from them.” When Vizcardo says “them,” he refers to government and the wealthiest one percent of the nation.
A musical guest, Mr. Entertainment, played at the teach-in. He was invited by FAU Faculty Union President Chris Robè, a film professor, who previously told the UP the union supports the Occupy movement.
The event was supposed to have an amplifier for anyone who wanted to speak, but FAU administrators and police told the occupiers that wasn’t allowed on the Free Speech Lawn. The event went on regardless of that.
Tom Aletto, another organizer, told the UP that consensus was formed on what Occupy FAU wants.
“We feel that – this is a generalized view – that not enough money is being spent towards education. Faculty have been taking pay cuts regardless of the fact that there has been inflation. Students have had tuition raises because of inflation, and yet that money has not gone back to the teachers,” said the freshman with no declared major.
Aletto opined that FAU could take money from some departments to fund education. Specifically, he suggested, “Money spent on Athletics, money for coaches.” He added, “I would appreciate if revenue generated from the stadium would return to the actual education system. But we see that money from the stadium covers the costs of the stadium, and then generates revenue for the coaches … so we don’t see it generating much revenue for the students.”
Neither Athletics Director Craig Angelos nor anyone in his stead was immediately available to respond.
Speaking for himself, Aletto thought that university president Mary Jane Saunders should take a pay cut. “I’m not saying that she doesn’t deserve it, because she’s our president. But if the students have to suffer, and the faculty have to suffer, our leader has to suffer.”
Saunders could not be reached for immediate response.
Aletto added that he believes that money transferred to education from Athletics – and other “little things” in FAU’s budget – could help decrease the cost of tuition.
“Our student body president received $20,000 a year. He does not pay his tuition prices, because he is elected to that office, and does a certain job. But his salary was raised in a time of economic crisis. Other Student Government members’ salaries were raised in a time of economic crisis. And we feel like that’s not fair.” The Student Body President actually receives $18,871 in compensation. Last year (2010-11), that was $16,853.90 according to SG’s 2010-11 budget.
Aletto added that the position of student body president should not receive tuition reimbursement, as it currently does.
To that, Student Body President Ayden Maher said, “Occupy movements are about the disparity between the rich and poor and corporate influence on government. My tuition waiver does not do either of those. If they want a student who works other jobs outside of school and does not focus on students then take away the waiver. The waiver provides equal opportunity for whomever wishes to serve the students regardless of personal wealth.”
On the Occupy movement itself, Aletto commented, “The one combining factor for all people in Occupy FAU – for all people in the Occupy Wall Street movement – is economic polarization, which is the gap between the high-class and the middle-class … A person with a vast amount of money is able to make political campaign donations. Really, the term is ‘lobbying,’” which he thinks should be banned.
As of press time, Occupy FAU has scheduled no future events. To learn more about the group, visit their Facebook page.
concerned student • Nov 5, 2011 at 11:51 am
occupy FAU is a bunch of crap get a job dirty hippies!
Dave • Nov 3, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Money from Athletics can’t go to education the same way that educational funding can’t go to paying for athletics. They can’t take stadium revenue and use it to hire more teachers. FAU students THINK you can because they’re lazy and don’t do their research. That’s not the way it works. If it did, UF would be swimming in (even more) money. Think about it.
Prof • Nov 4, 2011 at 8:06 am
Money from athletics _doesn’t_ go to education, but there’s no reason it _can’t_. The education budget pays for maintenance of athletic facilities such as landscaping, and keeping the lights on in the gym, etc. Students subsidize the athletic teams with fees. There’s no reason that the state should say that the millions spent on building a new stadium can’t be spent lowering tuition prices; they’ve just chosen to do it that way.
Dave • Nov 6, 2011 at 1:50 am
“There’s no reason that the state should say that the millions spent on building a new stadium can’t be spent lowering tuition prices; they’ve just chosen to do it that way.”
Because using millions to lower tuition is a stop-gap measure at best, don’t you see that? You can’t take out a multimillion dollar loan to reduce tuition because no revenue will come in to pay the loan back.
Prof • Nov 6, 2011 at 7:36 pm
If you see students as revenue sources, Dave’s right: the way to raise revenue is to raise tuition. If you see taxes as the way to fund public education–which is the way public education worked until the past 20 years–then there’s a revenue source that isn’t tuition. Of course, if your goal is to take tax money and give it to developers and building contractors–and take a look at the Board of Trustees to know where they are coming from–then devoting tax dollars to stadiums makes a lot more sense.
Gonzalo Vizcardo • Nov 3, 2011 at 12:50 pm
To reiterate what I said and correct the misquotation, Occupy FAU will not be issuing “demands,” as this further reinforces the divide between the 99% and the 1% who make decisions and have power over the 99%. The point is to build power within the 99% so that we ourselves will be able to realize what we desire. If those currently the 1% in power want to make decisions that we want and that benefit the 99%, they are welcome to, but they have not done so in decades and we’re not holding our breaths.