Critical Badger has beef with our coverage of the District 8 race, arguing opinion has dropped the ball. In terms of coverage, yes. It has been minimal. But not without good reason. In the time since the Editorial Board's endorsement of Eagon, Biddy Martin launched a massive - but necessary - increase in tuition, an alleged gang rape was brought to the attention of campus, and, conversely, nothing of significance has happened between the two candidates. There WAS a brave request to have Bob Marley play at Freakfest, but other than this laughable oversight, it is difficult for the page's staff, myself included, to write columns on unchanging situations. In other races, where perhaps the cases of ridiculousness were more common, or at least more evenly distributed (Manning v. O'Hagan), it made sense to have more intense coverage.

But let's be realistic. Nothing has happened since the endorsement. Eagon is the better candidate. Woulf, however, is not as stupid as O'Hagan. He is by no means worthy of the position, but then again, he's not worthy of arbitrary columns that repeat ad absurdum points made over a month ago either.

Additionally, two endorsements of Eagon (one is forthcoming - sorry Woulf) from the editorial board and a column from Labuz strike me as effective coverage, given the fact that the election hasn't taken place yet. It is Opinion's responsibility to cover an issue, but if that is CB's argument, then wouldn't it be more effectively made by waiting to assess coverage AFTER the election? Yes, coming up with something 100 hours before is, I dunno, sudden. It's also the time when people will read, care, and all those other things they're supposed to do when they read opinion pages on issues they are used to, for the most part, ignoring.

And making the whimsical accusation that all we really give a damn about is "making you mad," is, well, dumb. Especially if that accusation is made before the election has ended. Yes, the page should address substantial issues. It should also address them in times when people will give a shit, and only as much as they will give a shit, about. In short, we give a damn about making you read, and persuading you with what you read. Suggesting that District 8 could have been worthy of 10-20 editorials displays a surprising lack of understanding regarding what we do here.

I'm the last person to argue we're perfect - there will inevitably be columns on the page that none of us are happy with printing. And there were a few that I would have been happy to see articles on District 8 replace - IF anything regarding that race had happened or was about to happen. Understanding the moment when our coverage will - and more importantly, will not - have the most influence is certainly not "sleeping on the job."

Passing through the Union the other day, I ran into two friends who asked me about Chancellor Biddy Martin’s Undergraduate Initiative, unveiled Tuesday to student leaders and the subject of immense speculation since. They were not enamored of the plan, and their objections, coming from people I consider perfectly rational, seemed rather bizarre. “It seems like a penalty against the rich,” said one. “It’s immoral.” Lulwut? If a student wants to attend a university and is qualified, financial issues should never stand in the way, period. The case is far more than moral. Simply allowing those with the ability but not the financial security to stand begging at the figurative gates ensures that the university is increasingly populated by the rich, regardless of their qualifications. And that is obscene. When even a libertarian is ready to qualify a policy as economically discriminatory, something is wrong. And in reality, the validity of Martin’s plan is difficult to take issue with. Raising tuition so that students of a high quality, regardless of their family income, can attend this university is not only an imperative from a quality standpoint, it is the only manner through which Madison’s reputation will continue to carry weight in the academic world. Simply put, financially rich does not - nor has it ever - implied intellectually superior. But how does one articulate to concerned students that differential tuition does not signal a Marxist war on wealth? Certainly, the opposition will always have its class acts, such as State Senator Glenn Grothman, who argued in a press release that the tuition hike was largely “an assault on two-parent families with traditional values.” Against such lamentable cases of deliberate absurdity, little effort can or should be invested. But when students at the university themselves begin to feel they are the victims of a vague left-wing agenda, it becomes clear that more should be done for the sake of the Initiative in terms of communication. Martin is, in this writer’s opinion, doing a respectable job so far. Without travelling into the realm of pro-administration hackery, I’ve found myself impressed, especially given the habitual willingness of administrative figures to avoid publicizing their own controversy. Not only did she hold forums and invite student leaders, Martin emailed students at random and invited them to meet with her personally and discuss the Initiative. She can hardly be accused of being a hermit on the issue. On the other hand, this paper has already received and printed a rant from a purported former donor to the university who argued that the tuition increase he will pay has replaced his will to donate money. While literarily wacking off to Barry Goldwater in no way qualifies as reasonable, it is clear that more needs to be done. More meetings with students need to occur, perhaps one or two a week. The initiative is going to go through, and holding forums of willing participants is not going to be enough. Those who are relatively ignorant of campus affairs will participate whether they like it or not - but they are for the most part reasonable and deserve more active outreach. On a broader scale, the initiative should also be associated with a more responsible approach to spending generally. Donors, especially those who provide for new construction, should be advised - tactfully - as to whether there might not be a better cause for their money, particularly professor salaries and financial aid. As I’ve argued before, increases in segregated fees for buildings are absurd. Martin and her administration should make it clear that the intellect of a campus is much more important than the buildings it is housed in. And as for the money, the more enthusiastic those being “penalized” are, the easier the economic bullet will be to bite. Thoughts? Sam Clegg