Back in January 2009, Innermost Parts was the first news outlet to report that the Board of Trustees had decided to close the Rose Art Museum.  Last September, we were the first to announce that President Reinharz was going to resign.  Both times, we were accused of irresponsibly publishing false rumors, but both times, we ended up being correct.

So when Emily posted on March 13th that the Spring Fest music committee had booked Passion Pit to headline Spring Fest 2010, I feel that our track record should have been good enough that we should have at least gotten the benefit of the doubt.  However, we were again attacked in the comments, being called a “trash rumour site” and told we should “recheck our sources”.  And when the Spring Fest line-up was revealed on April 19th, the headline act was — surprise! — Passion Pit.  Imagine that.

I don’t know why our commentators thought it was appropriate to accuse us of rumor-mongering while they were doing that very thing, trying to spread confusion by claiming that it was actually Owl City who was coming.  And I don’t know why they thought it was appropriate to lie in a public forum about how Student Events’ money — money that comes from all of us — was going to be spent.  While I definitely appreciate the hard work that goes into planning events like Spring Fest, that doesn’t give anyone the right to be dishonest to students about student money.

My policy for handling confidential information is simple.  If someone tells me something with the understanding that it remains confidential, I won’t say or publish a word about it.  However, if someone with inside information shares important news with me because they want it to be publicized, I’ll write about it as long as 1) I’m confident that the source is trustworthy on the issue and 2) I think the information is interesting to the Innermost Parts community.  I may have further reservations on a case-by-case basis, but for the most part, I think my responsibility as an activist blogger demands that I’m transparent as possible with what I know about campus events.  I can only speak for myself, but I’m pretty sure that most Innermost Parts authors would agree with me.

By the way, Passion Pit alone cost us $40,000 dollars, and the newly-created Brandeis Sustainability Fund costs around $50,000 dollars.  Why hasn’t there been a push against holding Spring Fest from the people who are complaining about spending so much money?

17 comments on “SPRINGFEST — You Heard It Here First!”

  1. Nat Says:

    I don’t know why Passion Pit cost 40k. I assume the rest of the bands weren’t cheap. They should give Punk Rock a fourth of that and they’d get better bands.

  2. Nat Says:

    By the way, things like Student Events wasting a ton of money are reasons why we shouldn’t secure more clubs. F-board holds clubs far more accountable.

    Also, as a whole, Innermost Parts is significantly more reliable than any other campus media.

  3. art Says:

    Spring Fest costs along because surprise, we each pay 1000 dollars towards a SAF.

  4. Jon Says:

    Now $1007.50.

  5. Doug Says:

    And the SAF benefits every student (myself included), and wasn’t forced on us in a time of recession, no jobs, and massive tuition increases. It has existed as far back as I am aware.

  6. Nat Says:

    Let’s be fair to the sustainability fund; it costs one tenth of one percent of room and board.

    Of the money that goes towards SAF, a huge chunk goes towards funding secured organizations like the Justice (which I try not to read, but I assume some people do), WBRS (which I’ve listened to once), BTV (the only time I’ve watched it, there was a 45 second loop of a BTV member rubbing himself while wearing a BTV “turn me on” t-shirt. This carried on all summer), the Yearbook (which I’ll see once and though I guess it’s necessary, I honestly don’t care whether or not I get one), Student Events (which wastes money by the truckload). SSIS and Waltham Group are probably the only secured organizations I have a favorable opinion of. (I may have missed one or two).

    We could easily find the money for a Sustainability Fund in the SAF without cutting anything that anyone cares about.

  7. Jon Says:

    Nat is right. Forget the claims that the BSF board will be unaccountable – Student Events wastes way, way, way more money than they’ll ever see, and they have no accountability whatsoever. Maybe we can start a campaign to radically reduce their funding/gain community oversight?

  8. Nat Says:

    Jon,

    I’m not a defender of the BSF because I think it *will* be unaccountable in much the same way, even though it will probably benefit the student body way more than I’ve ever cared about anything that half the secured clubs on campus do. If I weren’t graduating next year, I’d actually have a proposal for them, while my recommendation to BTV might go along the lines of “suck less and spend less money doing it.”

  9. Scott Says:

    Yo why does Springfest have to be a secret for such a long time. And why can’t we vote on it ?
    Also why do I ask question and never do anything about it. I suck. Also Student Events man someone needs to tell them to not be silly.

  10. Student Events Says:

    Student Events appreciates your concern and interest in our events and budgeting. However, some of your comments are inaccurate and misconstrued, and we would like to be able to clarify them and clear up any issues and concerns you may have. Coincidentally, we are holding an open forum tomorrow night (Thursday), at 6pm in the Shapiro Art Gallery. We would love for you to come so that we can clear up any misconceptions and get your input for how Student Events can better serve the entire student body.

  11. Anonymous Says:

    In the comments section of the article linked to above about President Reinharz’s resignation, specifically comment 36, an innermost parts blogger claimed ” As for Innermost Parts being a biased news organization, we aren’t a “news organization.” We’re an opinionated blog that sometimes breaks news. ” Yet here you claim you are indeed a legitimate news outlet. so which is it?

  12. Nat Says:

    Anonymous,

    You can be legitimate and biased at the same time. If I wanted an unbiased, balanced view of issues, I’d probably go somewhere other than IP.

    That being said, they sometimes break factual news. Passion Pit headlining Springfest vindicates them (again). Their critics on this count have been discredited. I don’t think Adam claimed IP was a legitimate news outlet, but they’re certainly correct.

  13. Nat Says:

    Student Events,

    According to the treasurer’s website, Student Events received 135k. I’m not sure whether this is for the semester or for the year. Regardless, the treasurer’s page is remarkably unspecific on what or how the money is spent. This runs counter to the way chartered clubs work, where information is available on a line-by-line basis.

    This is only my opinion, but Student Events’ budget could easily be halved without making a bit of difference to my social life on campus. Student Events consistently spends money on things chartered clubs wouldn’t have a prayer of getting approved (free coffee outside Usdan where there are three separate places to get coffee on a campus which requires residents to have a mealplan? really?). There are many other worthy causes for that rather large sum.

  14. art Says:

    Nat, not everything a university does has to be pursuant to some greater good. things like those morning coffee-and-music events pep us up, and let some people have a good time.

  15. Adam Hughes Says:

    Student Events,

    Thanks for reaching out to us. I’m not sure what is incorrect, and I still stand by everything I wrote, but I’d love to hear what you have to say. I’ll be at the forum, and I encourage everyone reading this to come as well.

  16. Adam Hughes Says:

    Nat,

    Thanks, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Anonymous,

    What Nat said. Also, Innermost Parts doesn’t have any positions of its own, it’s just a compendium of its authors opinions. “News outlet” is a somewhat ambiguous term, and what it means to one person might be different than what it means to someone else. Ultimately, you (or anyone else) can decide whether you want to consider us a news outlet or not; it’s just haggling over a definition. However, what you can’t deny is that when we do break news, we have a very high rate of accuracy despite the naysayers we always seem to provoke. News outlet or not, I think we’ve proven ourselves to be trustworthy.

  17. art Says:

    To say that IP has no agenda is perhaps not correct. It is also fine-people can separate the facts and the color. And that skew definitely does not show everywhere.