The column by Philip Moon, "ASMSU is selling out its constituents with Mobile Campus service" (SN 2/09), failed to press the importance of several points about the bill passed by Student Assembly.

The most important being that bill 42-60 does not force MSU into a contract with Mobile Campus. It only states ASMSU's intention to open negotiations with Mobile Campus, the administration, RHA and other groups on campus.

Fortunately, Moon did manage to mention some of the benefits of Mobile Campus via a few short sentences stuck half-heartedly in the middle. He did not, however, cover all the bases when he mentioned ASMSU receiving revenue from Mobile Campus.

Although he states that many supporters of the bill openly said they do not care about the revenue money, it is important to note that ASMSU can also choose not to receive any revenue at all from Mobile Campus.

In fact, I would be hard-pressed to find representatives on Student Assembly who support the idea of ASMSU receiving revenue.

The Student Assembly representatives who voted to support this bill were seeking to provide students and student groups with a new and valuable service.

Student governments in Texas and Florida agreed that Mobile Campus is a valuable service for their students. Universities in Arizona, Maryland and several other states will be launching Mobile Campus by fall 2006.

All the statements about "selling out," "preserving dignity" and being "blinded by the money" are mere rhetoric.

Why The State News insists on vilifying ASMSU in nearly every endeavor is beyond me.

ASMSU encourages students with concerns and opinions on any student issue to come to the meetings or to contact their college representatives to speak their peace.

Deena Awad
microbiology senior and
ASMSU Student Assembly member