Editorial: Readership program flawed, still valuable

Despite flaws in execution, the readership program is still a net positive to the Pitt communityThe Pitt News reports in today’s paper that boxes purchased by the Student Government Board to reserve free copies of USAToday and The New York Times for undergraduates don’t work. Any student with a Pitt ID can access the newspapers, including graduate students and College of General Studies students — neither of whom pay for the privilege.

But just because the ID-swiping mechanism on the boxes isn’t as effective as hoped for doesn’t mean the program isn’t worth saving. It is in the students’ best interest that SGB maintain funding for the program.

Of course it’s bad that freeloaders exist in the system. It feels wrong for someone else to enjoy something for free when you are paying for it with an admittedly small portion of your massive tuition bill.

But the purpose of the readership program wasn’t to usher in a grand era of equality and fairness across Pitt’s campus. The readership program is just supposed to get newspapers in the hands of undergraduates.

And in this regard, even largely ineffective swipe-access locks seem to have proven surprisingly effective at getting students their newspapers.

While our evidence is purely anecdotal, it seems the action of reaching into a pocket, arranging card in hand, swiping and pulling out a newspaper has largely solved the problem of students picking up the paper without any intention of reading it.

Because of these boxes, it’s become rare for there to be a lack of newspapers available for interested undergraduates. Boxes that are usually filled until the end of the day have replaced the racks that were once empty by 3 p.m. So even if freeloaders are stealing papers, it isn’t that noticeable in terms of limiting student access.

Of course, graduate and CGS students who pick up papers are still cutting into the Student Activities Fund, even when there are enough copies for paying students. Every paper not picked up is reimbursed, so every misallocated paper technically represents a loss of money that could be spent on other undergraduate programs.

But although undesirable, this doesn’t seem too compelling a reason to end the program. For one, today’s boxes do prevent faculty, staff and others in the community from taking newspapers, limiting at least some fraud. Also, today’s imperfect solution cost the University nothing to implement, with participating newspapers providing the boxes at no cost.

And with SGB routinely posting activities fund surpluses at the end of the year, there isn’t much pressure to cut funding to this specific program.

Most significantly, perhaps, ending the readership program would just send that money back into the general fund. This would simply shift undergraduate dollars toward more spending on individual student organizations, a constituency already generously supported by the SGB Allocations Committee. As one of the few programs that benefit students outside student organizations, a certain amount of freeloading might be acceptable, especially when the alternative could possibly be an increase in travel funding for selected presidents of student organizations.

Of course, if student outrage does explode, SGB should re-evaluate the program. And if nonpaying students begin more blatant abuse of the program, more serious protection measures would need to be implemented.

But until there is a burst of student dissatisfaction or a lack of papers for interested undergraduates, there is no reason to change course immediately. The boxes have been installed and they work reasonably well at keeping enough copies around. While we don’t like the idea of students freeloading, the current situation is good enough. At the very least, it’s preferable to the alternative scenario of canceling the readership program entirely.