Conventional wisdom dictates that it is impossible to please everyone all the time, and mans experiences in the world political, legal, and social generally seem to confirm this fact. Indeed, economists tell us that the challenge of mankind, in strictly economic terms, of course, is to choose how best to satisfy unlimited desires with limited resources. Perhaps it is just this realization that perfect equity among human parties is virtually unattainable which engenders the distaste generally afforded the crybaby. Complaints such as, Why do I have to be the first to deliver the Beukas presentation? or How come the soda machine ran out of Mountain Dew when I wanted to buy one? are not likely to garner much sympathy, and rightfully so. Someone must be the first to give the presentation, and only a finite number of Mountain Dews can be stocked in the soda machine; at some point, some poor, thirsty soul will inevitably suffer without his sugar rush. In each instance, the absence of any reasonable, workable alternative to the natural course of events seems to insulate us from lending credence to the judiciousness of the complaint.

However, another sort of complaint seems intrinsically righteous. When an organization knows full well that it is perpetrating significant inequity, and viable alternatives to the status quo exist, and the organization possesses the means to address the imbalance but chooses instead to treat the problem as if it were an unavoidable circumstance such activity demands the protest of fair-minded individuals.

And so, with all due seriousness and gravity, we denounce the manner in which Yeshiva is forcing undergraduates, against their express wishes, to live in the off-campus apartments of the Independent Housing Program. As Yeshiva raised tuition for incoming students by more than 17% over the past two years, the justification offered for the increase centered on one recent campus innovation the Ethernet network, a benefit only available to students in Yeshiva dormitories. How ironic it is that scores of incoming students, who shoulder the full weight of Yeshivas $25,000/year price tag, are being denied the very service for which we were told they were being asked to fork over a disproportionate share of Yeshivas tuition increases.

This situation, of course, constitutes simple thievery. Fortunately, though, Yeshiva possesses both the financial and logistical means necessary for remedying the problem. Yeshiva must implement one of at least two ethical options, neither of which is maintaining the status quo: 1) Arrange for the expeditious procurement of high-speed Internet access for IHP students. 2) Immediately refund a portion of the tuition paid by students who are forced to live in the IHP. High-speed Internet access generally costs around $50 per month; we therefore suggest that refunds for the full academic year to IHP students total approximately $450.

In terms of covering the costs of either of these moves, we are confident that Yeshivas endowment of more than $1.385 billion and this years operating profit will suffice. And if not, we are certain that next years tuition increase will more than alleviate the problem.