Too often, the academic needs of undergraduate students are forgotten. And too often, the non-academic needs of graduate students are forgotten.

This was the case with the SUPERB entertainment referendum, a fee increase proposal that blatantly disregarded the needs of most graduate students in favor of the needs of some undergraduate students. Surprisingly, graduate students voted en mass against the referendum and played a significant part in the referendum's 112-vote defeat-despite being outnumbered by undergraduates on campus two to one.

To see how the graduate student vote contributed to the referendum's defeat, let us use votes for Brad Froehle (a graduate student candidate for ASUC senate) as a proxy for how graduate students voted.

Of those voters who ranked Brad Froehle first for senate, 233 voted no on the referendum and 36 voted yes. By itself, this 197-vote differential spans the referendum's margin of defeat.

Moreover, those who ranked Froehle somewhere on their ballot for senate opposed the referendum 406 to 172. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate that at least 70 percent of graduate students opposed the referendum

Assuming at least 1,000 graduate students voted (a conservative estimate), this leads to a vote differential of at least 400 votes, easily covering the 112 votes by which the referendum lost.

The $4.50 per semester fee referendum did try to support the needs of graduate students. Yet the campus life of graduate students is focused on their department­-in contrast, the campus-wide activities that SUPERB supports simply do not appeal to the vast majority of graduate students, especially when the events cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Graduate students would prefer to use that money for an increase in funding for department-orientated events and activities. This message was continuously conveyed to the referendum author's supporters and the ASUC senate, who nonetheless decided to go forward with the referendum.

There was another aspect of the referendum that clearly was unfair to graduate students. The referendum, supporters pointed out, would increase funding for student groups, but only undergraduate student groups. (Since the ASUC currently funds SUPERB, the referendum would have-had it passed-released funding to the senate to be allocated to undergraduate student groups.)

Although only undergraduate student groups would benefit, graduate students would be paying almost one-third of the cost-a fact so obviously unfair to graduate students that it speaks for itself.

Defeat was not the inevitable fate of the referendum. One early version of the referendum included language that would have proportionally distributed the funds between the needs of undergraduate and graduate students.

However, the authors rejected it- ironically due to the concern that undergraduate students would not vote for something that specifically allocated funds to graduate students. The ASUC Senate (which theoretically represents all students) also rejected this more equitable version. Moreover, they rejected it by a vote voice well after midnight.

Perhaps future referenda will do a better job respecting the needs of graduate students-as well as our vote.

Tags: GRADUATE ASSEMBLY, ASUC ELECTIONS 2008, SUPERB REFERENDUM