The new Talley has opened. Four restaurants and Talley Market began operations at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, officially opening phase I of the Talley Student Union. 

 Phase I-A of the new Talley isn’t yet quite finished, as it should be this semester—the gaming area isn’t there yet—and phase I as a whole is scheduled to be finished early next semester. Phase II, which was originally going to be finished by in late 2014, is now slated to open in early 2015. 

 Regardless of such minor hitches, good for us. The old Talley Student Center was a crummy old slab that made students warm to D.H. Hill Library. A lot, if not most of us, will likely find the new Talley an improvement, though given its appearance, some of us may find it another “attempt to marry a battering ram and the Dorton Arena.”

So on this occasion, let’s review if the decision to have a new student center is appropriate. The events leading up to this decision, which took place in 2009 before most of us were enrolled at the University, might raise questions about the nature of democracy at our University.

In Oct. 2009, Student Government held a non-binding referendum in which students were asked, whether they saw “a need for increased funding in the Atrium Food Court and Talley Student Center,” and whether they approved of such funding as a result of a hike in student fees. While 56.6 percent of students voted there was a need for such funding, only 38.4 percent voted for an increase in student fees. 

Still, Student Senate approved a graduated fee of $83, not to exceed $290 at any point, for the coming year. The fee for Talley was subsequently passed by University administrators.

In a nutshell, here’s what happened: We were asked whether we wanted to fund Talley’s renovation. We said we didn’t. Yet, our money was taken.

Yes, the referendum was non-binding—the University did not act absolutely dishonestly by charging us for Talley. Yes, the old Talley was a wreck, and there is a good case for why we needed a new Student Center. But it is necessary to address the manner in which democracy is exercised at our University.  

First, when the amount of money taken from students was of such a large quantity, at a truly democratic institution, such a referendum would not have been non-binding. 

Second, when there was so much student money involved in the equation, a truly democratic University would have tried harder to convince the students that a new Student Center was necessary. For the matter, the University did try, but the Rally 4 Talley campaign, in which Campus Enterprises spent more than $10,000, didn’t do its job. In fact, this kind of misleading marketing approach is called “astroturfing,” and is prohibited by the code of ethics of the Public Relations Society of America.

Third, in a truly democratic university, Student Government would have stood with the students. But SG chose not to speak on behalf of the students, instead choosing to do the administration’s bidding. 

Even today, SG lacks the audacity to speak about the inattention to students’ voice that took place in 2009. Both Wesley Lo, a student and President of University Student Centers Board of Directors, and Student Body President Alex Parker, don’t consider themselves authorities to comment regarding the referendum, since they weren’t there at that time. If that’s the case, they also shouldn’t be able to say anything about the Civil War. I asked Parker more than once, whether he thought that the new Talley represented a legitimate use of money and he repeatedly answered, “I’m just happy it’s open.”

Now, Student Government probably didn’t have much power in this anyway. After all, technically, it only recommends fee increases to the Fee Review Committee, and given how much the University had already invested into the idea of a new student center, the administration may well have still increased fees. This, of course, would have spoken even more clearly to how little students are in charge of their education. 

So let’s not hold SG’s meekness against it when we reap the benefits of what we didn’t want taken from us. It’s the Administration, and in particular, Campus Enterprises, that led the charge for a new Talley. So, whether they were right in doing so or not, let’s just remember: This isn’t our State, this is the administration’s State.