Students have long advocated for better wellness and recreation services on campus. According to Campus Recreation, “when surveyed in the fall of 2023, 91% of students indicated that a new facility should be a high priority for CSUSM.”
Last semester, the “Be Well. Be You.” campaign proposed a Wellness and Recreation facility near the QUAD that would have raised Recreation student fees to $265 per semester. However, this did not pass after a campus-wide student fee referendum. 60% of students voted against the proposal, even though only 10% of the student population voted — a clear sign of students’ dissatisfaction with the proposal.
This Fall, Campus Recreation launched a new campaign for the facility, this time with some slight changes. The “Vote for U” fee referendum would increase total Recreation fees to $245 per semester once the facility opens. This fee would then increase by 3% per year to adjust for inflation. (For an in-depth voter’s guide and pamphlet, visit Campus Recreation’s “Vote for U” campaign website.)
Next week, students will decide if the adjustments made in this new proposal are worth the drastic fee increase. According to Campus Recreation, “Online voting will begin at 7:00 am on Monday, October 21 and be open until 5:00 pm on Wednesday, October 23. Ballots will be emailed to eligible students via their university-registered email addresses. An authentication survey link will be featured on the referendum website during voting dates. All matriculated students who pay the Recreation Fee are eligible to vote.”
Last semester, I raised many concerns about this proposal, including unreasonably high student costs, leased land, and niche services — like E-sports, Yoga, and pickleball courts — that would be funded by all students regardless of who uses them. This is especially concerning given CSUSM’s ethos as a commuter school, making the facility a hard sell for those who prefer gyms and activities closer to home.
Given the swift manner CSUSM has brought forward another referendum, we should ask ourselves: Why are we voting again so soon after last semester’s failed initiative? And why should students be expected to pay for the facility?
Just last April students voted against effectively the same proposal. What is new enough to make students change their minds now? On CSUSM’s Reddit, many expressed such concerns:
“They’re voting on this again? Students already decided last semester that they didn’t want this.”
“They are already making bank off parking alone ridiculous.”
“Who in the right mind would want to pay that much tf.”
“I’m not even sure will I use that facility considering it located next to QUAD [sic].”
Yet even this framing is somewhat problematic, considering that the CSU has stockpiled a nearly $8 billion reserve fund and the Chancellor receives practically a $1 million per year income. This fee referendum is yet another example of public universities charging outrageous fees in order to cover the state’s deficit and service immense debts owed to financial institutions. Just last month, students at CSU Sacramento saw their fees raised by about $500 beginning next year, bringing their total fees to about $1,500 per semester, almost half the amount of their tuition. CSUSM students should be wary of this trend and quick to resist such fee increases.
Students should not be expected to pay exorbitant fees for a facility just because they expressed support for it. CSUSM’s dogged pursual of student fees under the guise of meeting students’ needs is a tone-deaf act of selective popularism that ignores the more pressing concerns students have. Cost-of-living weighs heavily on students’ minds, and it is inconsiderate to raise student fees for this facility when students are more concerned about housing, tuition, income, parking permits, and groceries.
This is alarming given the 34% tuition increase for CSU students over the next five years. (And besides, we were never meant to pay tuition at CSU schools!)
Ironically, a campus that prides itself on social mobility does not think such a massive student fee increase would be of great concern to students. So, does this proposal have students’ best interests in mind? And why are students expected to pay for the facility in the first place?
Furthermore, voting last semester raised serious concerns. On April 9 at 6:34 AM, an email was sent to all eligible students about the referendum. This email explained the referendum and how voting was set to begin at 7AM. 30 minutes later, the electronic ballot appeared as follows:
Notice how nothing in the email clearly states how it is the voter’s ballot. The only information provided was that voting had begun, followed by a “survey” link.
Once voters took the “survey” — that is to say, cast their ballots — they received this email:
It goes without saying that this was horribly misleading and likely resulted in less students voting. Despite this, students still managed to vote down the proposed facility, even given the low voter turnout and questionable polling method.
If students do not want this fee referendum to succeed, they must make their voices heard. You can find more information about voting here and see the table below for a list of upcoming on-campus events. Be sure to cast your ballot on Oct. 21-23!
Anonymous • Oct 20, 2024 at 1:22 pm
I don’t agree with your points a single bit. The reason that the referendum is being brought back to reconsider is because they have changed a lot of factors such as us not having to pay for it 2 years before it’s built. Another factor is because CSUSM no longer wants to be seen as a “commuter school”, there is more to strive for on campus. With a this semester alone CSUSM has 17,000 students and many of whom are freshman. This is a great way to change how our campus is viewed and transform it from a “commuter school” to a school where students can spend a lot of time doing both academic, physical, and social activities while on campus. Additionally if added up, it actually becomes a lot cheaper to partake in activities such as going to the gym and other extracurriculars because it is at a much cheaper cost as to doing to a private gym and paying for it individually; look at it as a package deal. I also disagree with you calling many interests that people have as “niche”, it wouldn’t be fair to call something niche if there is a clear demand from the community. This was also a criticism you have received in your article last semester. By that logic every extracurricular on campus can be labeled into the “niche” category since not everybody on campus is partaking in it. But if campus is willing to go out of their way and provide many students with the opportunity to spend more time on campus and building a facility like that, there is a clear demand. I disagree with this article especially with a lot of changes being added and the facility having many benefits for the current students who wish to visit campus, as well as the future classes at CSUSM.
Justin Gans • Oct 21, 2024 at 2:51 pm
By “niche,” I do not mean to say that the services are obscure or not worth funding. Only that it does not make sense for students to pay $245 for many services they will never use. My gym membership is $15 a month because that is what I need. It is unreasonable to expect a cost like this from all students by calling it a “package deal.” Call upon the CSU for more funding because we know they have it, they’d just rather have students pay the costs.
Ken Kim • Oct 17, 2024 at 12:55 pm
I appreciate the concern you show for your peers and their financial wellbeing but how students choose to spend their money is entirely up to them. This article is a drastic improvement from the last article you published now that it explicitly states opinions of clear biased arguments. However nothing in here actually tells students the real consequences of saying yes other than money. Pointing out an average individual’s desires for not wanting to spend money is not enough supporting evidence as to why this building should not be passed. The Campus REC department and various student run organizations are working very hard to make this campus a better place. While stating baseless accusations of interests being niche are not exactly fair and valid without actually stating sources, surveys of your own, polls and interviews; these comments are still overall very shallow and misguided. Comparing our recently developed school to another campus that shadows us in acquiring assets by almost 40 years is not a fair point to make. If you took the time to sit down and gather facts from first hand sources, I believe you may find more useful information to truly speak on why it’s a bad idea to let this building potentially flourish. I do respect your opinion and give you credit for your hard work but I sincerely cannot support such a poorly misguided argument only pointing out the smaller details such an automated email. The argument you made on “Social Mobility” is truly absurd because, as a Sociology major, Social Mobility is clearly defined as a person’s socio-economic status changing over time. It however unfortunately does not state in the theory of social mobility that change will not always be upwards. Pulling sources from online forums such as Reddit is not exactly credible as given the track record of many online users are using those platforms for malicious and jester-like conduct. It would be greatly appreciated that you, as I mentioned, sit down with students face to face and undergo real opinion gathering through interviews.
Justin Gans • Oct 21, 2024 at 2:47 pm
“Pointing out an average individual’s desires for not wanting to spend money is not enough supporting evidence as to why this building should not be passed.”
Why? My whole argument is not against the facility. Despite your claim that I did not cite surveys, I began the article by showing how students want a facility! My main concern, shared by many other students, is that we are expected to pay such high fees regardless of our status as a commuter or someone unlikely to use the services. I hope to see CSUSM Rec receive proper funding, but this is not the right way to go about it. Student debt is not the answer to a problem that the CSU itself created. The CSU has billions of dollars allocated for reserves and overpaid administration, yet students are expected to bear the costs for our own wellbeing.