Two years ago, I graduated when SGA was debating the Beacon’s funding. I am incredibly disappointed to hear the debate is still raging.

I know everyone who sits in those meetings cares. During my tenure, I was working with a very active, passionate President whose time in office set a record. There were many who didn’t like the way he ran things and were quite vocal about it. And that’s fine. That’s how we keep each other in check.

The Beacon debate began when the Beacon itself endorsed a somewhat polarizing candidate in a heated, controversial election. This is a very common practice among newspapers. It was also the catalyst for this debate.

Soon after the Beacon endorsements, it was time for the budget process and this is where the controversy over the Beacon’s funding began. The idea to give SGA control over it was a DIRECT result of the endorsement of a specific candidate. Some SGA members did not feel it was fair that the endorsement gave someone an advantage. Those who felt the Beacon was too involved in campaigns wanted a way to control it. The only way they could was by curbing its funding.

I know the proponents of this idea care and they want to make the school they love better. That said, I also witnessed the bitterness and antipathy in this idea’s conception.

My hope was that as those of us who graduated moved on, SGA would too. Clearly, that’s not the case.