University
investigates survey manipulation in rec.
center survey
Katie Plourd
Online Forty-Niner
Managing Editor
University officials recently discovered Cal State Long Beach students allegedly
hacked into the university computer system and manipulated up to 1,000 of last
fall’s Recreation Assessment for Associated Students surveys to read negative
votes against the implementation of building a recreation center on campus.
According to Cal State Long Beach President F. King Alexander, the university
was made aware of the tampering a month ago and is working to track down the
perpetrators, who are CSULB students. Alexander confirmed the university has
discovered at least 300 votes that were falsely interjected into the online survey
via computer manipulation involving students hacking into the system and filling
out surveys for other students. There could be as many as 1,000 votes involved
in the operation, he said.
“
We have a pretty good idea who it might be, a number of people who it might
be,” he said. “We’re going to investigate it and find out
in the next month and make sure everybody knows what happened.”
Alexander said the survey manipulation is definitely student involved and when
the perpetrators are confirmed they will face harsh penalties.
“
As anybody [would] who hacks into the university system and manipulates referendums,
they should face the justice that is fitting to what they have done,” Alexander
said. “I don’t know if they think it’s a joke or if they
are promoting an agenda, but it certainly adds to the fact that the results
indicate students want a facility.”
The student being investigated held an elected position in ASI this past term
and had access to student information that would allow such tampering, according
to a CSULB student who requested his or her name be withheld and was involved
in giving the tip off to Associated Student Inc. Executive Director Richard Haller.
Haller was unable to confirm an ASI elected representative was involved in such
activities because, according to his policy, he is unable to discuss the matter.
“
The ends don’t justify the means in many ways. This is a classic case
that people had an agenda and hacked into the system and falsified anywhere
from 300 to 1,000 votes,” he said. “We want to know why, how, who
did it and make sure nobody does it again on any sort of referendum. I think
that misrepresents students, it misrepresents the information and misrepresents
the issue entirely.”
There have been a number of students, student organizations and anti-rec. center
groups that have been vocal against building a recreation center on campus since
the university began assessing student needs last spring.
According to the Feb. 24, 2005 Daily Forty-Niner article “Anti-recreation
center coalition returns, councilman Colonna speaks to senate,” a number
of students from various organizations spoke to the Associated Student Senate
as part of the Coalition to Stop the $35 Million Rec. Center.
These students spoke on behalf of a number of campus organizations including
the Campus Progressives, History Students Association, Muslim Student Association,
La Raza, the Chicano/Latino Student Association and Action in Defense of Education.
The Campus Progressives were one organization that campaigned for the Anti-Rec.
Center Coalition, speaking out at a number of Senate meetings last spring in
regards to the assessment attempting to take place.
According to Campus Progressives meeting minutes for March 2, 2005 the group
discussed tactics such as getting members involved in student government and
spreading their perceived information regarding the assessment of recreation
center desires to students.
The recent acknowledgement of computer hacking was not the first incident involving
student manipulation of information surrounding the assessment of CSULB students’ desire
for a rec center.
According to the Feb. 17, 2005 Daily Forty-Niner article, “Senate hears
objection to rec. center,” Anti-Rec Center Coalition flyers were distributed
to at least one of the focus groups held to determine students’ interest
in a center. The flyer addressed their concerns with the assessment process such
as the cost to build a recreation creation center and how much students would
pay in fees per semester.
Political science major Andrew Brooks, who was involved in one of the focus groups,
told the Senate he said the distribution of flyers was an “attempt to ‘manipulate’ the
focus group,” according to the article.
Last fall’s survey, according to Alexander may possibly be nullified by
the university because of the new found tampering. The survey was not a vote
to determine if a recreation center would or would not be built on campus, according
to University
Student Union Director Dave Edwards, It was rather an assessment on how students
felt about a having a facility on campus. It sought to assess the recreation
needs and fee tolerance for development of a student recreation center.
The survey was developed by independent firm Brailsford & Dunlavey (B&D),
a facility planning and program management firm that works with educational institutions
and universities to determine student feelings on being taxed for development
purposes.
It
was distributed last fall to all CSULB students
with e-mail accounts linked to the university.
An e-mail was sent to students with a link to
the ASI Web site where the survey could be located.
According to Alexander this is where the tampering
took place. There were also flyers and postings
distributed throughout campus to notify students
about the survey.
Of the 7,889 CSULB students who completed the survey, including the possibly
1,000 fraudulently completed surveys, B&D was able to draw two conclusions.
“
In general, students support the concept of a rec. center on campus,” Edwards
said. “But the results showed [the survey] was unsure whether to tax
them with a fee increase.”
Although the results showed there was a demand for a rec. center from the students
surveyed, the findings on how students felt regarding taxation were too close
to proceed with any type of referendum proposing a fee increase to students.
Ninety percent of the students who completed the survey have memberships to off-campus
recreation facilities and would like to have some sort of recreation center on
campus.
“
The results indicate that students want a facility, but are unsure what a
larger or a small facility includes,” Alexander said.”“Many
students are unsure what is being asked. What the difference is between a
student union or recreation center.”
From seeing the impact a recreation center has on student life, a university
and the well being of those who take advantage of such a facility, Alexander
is disheartened students would be involved in manipulating how others felt about
a recreation center. He thinks that a lot of students are not sure what is meant
by a recreation center and there has been misinformation on the subject.
Assuring that students are informed on the issue is something he will make sure
happens when the university conducts another survey next fall.
The USU has placed ads in student publications this month to resurface student
attention on the recreation center issue, Edwards said. There will also be another
survey conducted next fall to assess how students feel.
“
We’re going to make sure that it doesn’t happen again and let
people know the type of penalties associated with that,” Alexander
said.
|
