I see no reason why The FlipSide should not be funded. The editorial-page content of The Spectator (a misnomer if ever there was one) is a clear reflection of the editor in chief's viewpoint. I don't know if that's because people who disagree with The Spectator simply don't bother to "waste their time" writing in anymore, or because of some anti-free-speech maliciousness on the part of the Editor, but it is quite clear to those who regularly read The FlipSide that its publishers are much more willing to let everyone have their say.

Perhaps The Spectator feels it has what it perceives as the campus' best interests, as it understands them, to defend with its editorial policy, but in so doing, it has long since abdicated its function as a _student_ newspaper, and instead has whored itself out as a mouthpiece for the university's administration and PR branches.

-t

I draw a comic strip for the Flip Side and am an assistant editor there. And while I consider *SOME* (not all) of my fellow staff members to be egomaniacal opportunistic Machiavellian weasels I'd be embarassed to be seen with in public, I think the Senate's decision was more than fair.

One of the Flip Side's biggest arguments for funding was that they wanted to be treated the same as other campus papers. Traditionally, the Spectator has received funding, and the last independent paper on campus (the greatly missed Daily Chimp) received some University funds as well. The Student Senate's decision to give the Flip Side 7.2 per cent of its expense budget left the Flip SIde with much less money than it asked for--- but about as much money as it deserves, as per its own staff members' call for "fairness".

Really, what the Flip Side needs to do to survive is get its shit together when it comes to getting advertisers. Something easier said than done, but still...

(I'd also like to add that through all of this, Brian Van DerKamp and Jeremy Gragert have been preternaturally diplomatic and realistic about matters.)

---David Recine