In response to “ASA and Board of Regents should work together in improving public education” (By Matthew Casey, Feb. 18):

“[A]lready had the option to request a refund of the fee” is disingenuous at best. The ASA’s own budget allocated $50 a year for refunds, and students were not even aware they were being charged the fee (or knew how to back out). Further, even if you wanted the money back, they made you fill out a form and send it to them (either mail or fax). It isn’t like you could just go into your UAccess account and change it; you actually had to expend a fair amount of effort to get that money back, ensuring that most people wouldn’t bother.

— Twentythirtyone

What is wrong with allowing a person (student) to choose to be independent? The ASA wants to be an independent voice for students, but it does not want students to have the independence of purposefully choosing to support the ASA and its mission. What does this say to the outsider looking in? Why give opponents of the ASA such an easy target of hypocrisy? The ASA has also not explained how the lack of a forced initial involvement by students constitutes a “violation” of free speech. Why is the ASA not rallying the student body together? The charge of suppression of speech is an egregious one — why not make the case to the students so they can put pressure on their legislators or ABOR? It seems odd to me that the only action taken is to sue and use student money to do it when other options are available.

— Robert

In response to “NAU student body senate to vote whether to support ASA’s lawsuit against ABOR” (By Brittny Mejia, Feb. 18):

So ASA is saying that without forcing students to pay a fee, ASA is unable speak up and defend students from being forced to do other (non ASA approved) things? I call shenanigans. If ASA was truly for freedom of speech, they would allow students to opt-in so that each and every dollar they receive comes from an informed student who is explicity supporting the ASA and the lobbying they perform. ASA needs more funding? Perhaps they should earn it by convincing their constituents that the ASA is effective and deserves to be funded. The ASA would throw a fit if students automatically donated money to an anti-abortion or pro-gun student lobbying group; even if the fee could be recovered (just like the ASA fee was), the call would be that these groups are “taking advantage of the uninformed” / “If students knew what their money was going for, they would never support this!” Oh, you mean to say that making students fund ideas they do not explicitly support is immoral? There are students that do not agree with ASA, why make the uninformed support them?

In the end, the ASA should be completely separate from the University system, funded from donations or grants from non-University controlled sources. To remain funded through the ABOR or ABOR controlled sources leaves the ASA handicapped from their stated mission, while forcing students to fund ASA compromises its position as a defender of students voices and choices. It is time for ASA to make a decision: become an independent, unfettered voice for students or remain just another organization trying to leech money from the uninformed student body.

— Robert R.