Letter to the Editor: Barry Scatton

Dear editor, While Temple College Republicans were almost moved to tears by the benevolence of the Temple Democratic Socialists, we will be respectfully declining their $5 offer. The members of TUCR feel Donald Hopkins, president

Dear editor,

While Temple College Republicans were almost moved to tears by the benevolence of the Temple Democratic Socialists, we will be respectfully declining their $5 offer. The members of TUCR feel Donald Hopkins, president of Temple Democratic Socialists, should use that $5 to invest in his continued education at Temple. It is quite obvious that, after reading his editorial, he could stand to benefit from more of it and we would not want to deprive him of the funds needed to continue his quest for knowledge.

It’s worth pointing out that Mr. Hopkins seems to be suffering from a case of identity crisis. While the generous offer he made on behalf of his organization is flattering, the fact that it would be coming out of his own pocket suggests that he is confused about how his own ideology seeks to re-distribute wealth. Shouldn’t the Temple Democratic Socialists be coercively obtaining that $5 from other students to give to TUCR’s members? Perhaps they should even seek out the richest 1 percent of students for the purpose of obtaining the $5 they so graciously wish to give us.

Since Mr. Hopkins would rather assert that Republicans have a narrow-minded view of social responsibility, we decided during tonight’s meeting that we would begin to collect voluntary donations from fellow TUCR members during the next few weeks. These donations will then be given to a local charity on behalf of TUCR. Being able to choose what organization receives the funds will help us decide the best location for the funds to go.

Mr. Hopkins should stick to what he knows best, and that is deciding for other people what to do with the fruits of their labor. In the meantime, we here at TUCR are recognizing that times are indeed hard for everyone and will be making use of our individual liberty in a way that does not infringe on the rights of others, so that we can ultimately help the least among us.

Barry Scatton
President of Temple University College


  1. This is an excellent response from Mr. Scatton. When I first read of the Temple Communists’ offer to pay for my $5 worth of the moronic green fee (and not the good kind that gets you on the golf course), my first thought was that these folks must have never taken a class in economics. By spending $5 on your own fee and the fee of all the sensible members of CR who oppose them, you are really putting yourself out financially for a program that makes as much sense as ObamaCare. It just doesn’t add up.

    I’ll keep my $5 and you can keep your “green tax” for those who want to voluntarily waste it. My $5 will be better used buying a few beers at Finnegan’s Wake or getting my car washed… at my own discretion.

  2. That Temple green fee? Guess what? It will create jobs…. ONE job, One more bureaucrat to decide on arbitrary green works; I don’t care if it’s JUST 5 dollars, next year it will be ten. It’s not like eveyone else is hitting me up either… AHEM temple bookstore.

    If you really want to go green then find some other way to do it.

  3. First, it is obvious everyone who commented on this article has heard nothing about the Green Fee except what their selective hearing has allowed them to hear. For everyone complaining about a $5 Green Fee and rising tuition, I suggest you place your concerns in areas far more relevant, such as the fact that our football coach is under contract for 1.4 million dollars and we rent the Link for millions more.

    Second, Barry sure is good at responding with bitter and baseless words. I especially like his final sentence that states he wants to help the “least among us” or in other words, help as few people as possible because it requires effort and thought on his part.

  4. Pundit,

    I concur with you that the football coach is overpaid and renting Lincoln Financial for the price that we pay is excessive. However, the true realist fights the battles he can win. It would not be realistic to go out and start fighting to rescind Al Golden’s contract or start playing football games in a vacant lot somewhere in North Philadelphia.

    It is realistic, however, to try to stop this excessive additional charge that all students would be forced to pay for feel good “going green” nonsense that is already functional on a voluntary basis. Also, if you think that higher tuition is a good thing it must mean that you don’t pay for your own education like some of us. These areas are far more relevant because those of us who care can make an impact here. The utopian idea of fighting the man to hire a cheaper football coach just ain’t happening.

    I’m with Barry… let’s stand up and fight to protect what little money we have as students. No green fee… no tuition hike.

  5. TempleConservative,

    I believe that I see where you are coming from, however I still think you are ill informed about what is happening and why. Are you aware of the soon to be instated city tax on businesses and institutions that lack green areas on their property? Are you aware of the numerous fees you already pay and probably don’t use, which cost significantly more than $5? Are you aware that President Ann Weaver Hart received a raise this year despite the fact all budgets in the university are frozen and the student tuition was raised by 2.9%.

    There is a lot of factors that I could list right now that I believe Temple College Republicans should concern themselves with before they fight an initiative which a large number of Temple students have shown support for. Universities don’t increase their tuition as often and as frequently as Temple has unless they are funding non-academic sources, i.e. athletics, campus expansion, even over acceptance issues. These are the issues the Republicans should be focusing on, as they are issues of fiscal responsibility which would garner much support from students, and in doing so would be saving everyone a lot more than $5.

    I can’t stress enough how poorly informed the TCR seem to be on this issue, and more importantly, in a time where Conservatism is really losing its sway with voters, how the TCR can write off environmental issues based on their ideology but not with facts or reasoning. All I hear so far is how the TCR don’t want to pay $5, but I’ve not heard any reasons other than their belief that they see it as a tax, any constructive dialogue on the side of the TCR has yet to be heard.

  6. Pundit,

    Your argument seems to be that because the city plans to institute a new green tax, other outrageous fees exist for services that Temple students pay for but do not utilize, and because Ann Weaver Hart got a raise when no one else did, that somehow the Temple student body should just bend over and take another, albeit slight, increase in tuition. What is your issue with Barry and the CR’s making a difference in an area where they can have a real impact rather than just making noise about administrative issues and getting nothing accomplished?

    This issue is not about the TUCR students not “wanting” to pay $5, as you seem to frame it. This debate is over whether TSG and Students for Environmental Action should be allowed to *compel* every student to pay $5 instead of simply giving them an option to decline if they so choose. I know how confusing this must be to you, as a former temple student I understand how liberal indoctrination can leave you inclined to believe that coercion and collective cost sharing for marginal benefit and a pat on the back to a selective few might be a good thing, but let me just clear something up for you: it’s not. Allowing TSG to pass and implement this is just a slippery slope to more fees concocted by any student organization with sway in the senate.

    And finally, since in your first post you did not seem to understand what “the least among us meant” I will fill you in. It is a phrase that essentially means “those less fortunate”. Have a nice day.

  7. TUCR President,

    I’m used to Conservatives making the empty argument about “Liberal indoctrination”. What does this mean? If you can’t make an argument, please don’t offer that up as if you made a point. If you didn’t like Temple’s “Liberal indoctrination” perhaps you should have gone somewhere else, but you didn’t, you chose Temple because it is a great school of higher education. I could easily call you out for Conservative indoctrination, yet I wouldn’t be making any point at all. Please make a better argument next time.

    And no one is “compelling” students to pay anything, the issue has been explained to any student who has signed the SEA petition or simply inquired about it via e-mail, and has also been covered in the papers for the larger student body. Thus far, SEA has collected 3,000 signatures in support of the Green Fee. It’s only the TCR’s who seem to feel they are being blindsided by this.

    Finally, the TCR’s didn’t seem to mind spending money on American flags last year when they wanted them in every classroom on campus. This might have been a one time payment, but all the same, here was an issue where a student organization with connections in the Senate attempted to *compel* the student body into doing something. Is it only the TCR’s who can decide the route of our money?

  8. Pundit,

    With regards to the flags issue you pointed out. I agree with you. I don’t think that was something TSG should have felt compelled to involve themselves in either. I wasn’t president at the time, nor was the issue brought up at our meetings. In fact, it was two members of TSG who notified me of that when I met with them 3 weeks ago to discuss the green fees.

    I’m curious to know why you think 3000 signatures is enough to determine whether or not every student on this campus pays a fee? My math skills are seriously lacking but I know enough to know that 3000 isn’t even close to being a majority. There are a lot of organizations at this school who like funds to do things they want to do. Are we supposed to let every organization on campus tax other students so that they can promote their agendas? This is wishful thinking at best and the only reason you are able to justify arguing for this mandatory fee is because it is “well-intended.”

    It isn’t only TUCR’s who feel “blindsided” by this legislation. I’ve talked to a number of kids from both sides of the aisle who think that this should be Temple’s responsibility, not the students. It’s TSG’s responsibility to talk to administrators and get them to allocate money from the existing budget for these things. They say that isn’t realistic but thats because they assume they are justified in taking the easy way out, which is this piece of legislation. Why should it be easy for SEA and The Office of Sustainability to raise their funds but every other organization on campus has to work their asses off to raise funds?

    My only major qualm with this legislation is that it is a mandatory fee. It should be optional. SEA and The Office Of Sustainability can promote their message, educate students and collect money all at the same time without resorting to coercion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.