This is from a letter sent to Helen Barrington by the Graduate Student Senate, campus address, Jan 28.

While we appreciate your timely response to our previous letter, your decision to shorten Tertulia flies in the face of our request. It is also highly cynical that while you have announced your cut (in half) to the program to the media as a positive thing, you failed to address the larger concerns.

Of all the dozens of largely Latin@ [sic] listeners who have been in touch with us about the programming of Tertulia, none have expressed anything but concern, frustration, and anger at your unilateral decision to cut the sole program dedicated to their community.

Furthermore, none of them were involved - none had a voice - in making the decision to cut Tertulia. Again, we reiterate that a public resource (particularly one that is held in trust by the University of Massachusetts) that does not answer to the public is very problematic. One very pertinent question that remains to be answered is: Which members of the Latin@ community had a role in the cut to the show? Which members had a voice in adopting "Epicentro Politico" at the expense of Tertulia? None of us - the leadership of undergraduate, graduate students, and faculty had any such input. Nor apparently did any leaders in the community. And according to Mr. Melendez, neither did the staff, and were informed of this decision as late as January 8th. Such a lack of discourse regarding the programming of the station presents serious questions about its management.

This unilateral decision-making process over a public institution is problematic and needs to be dealt with. How did WFCR, which prides itself on and is rooted in its public service, involve the public in its decision-making? If it did not, how do you propose to resolve this crisis of democratic process in the future?

Again, the cut to Tertulia is representative of a decrease in the priority of diversity for the station, as well as extraordinary lack of respect to the Latin@ minority population of the Valley. If the station in suffering from financial distress, we firmly believe that one of the programs to cut is not one that serves an already marginalized community.

While "Epicentro Politico" is indeed a Spanish-language program, its adoption seems to be bot tonenistic and without consideration of the strong Puerto Rican communities in the Valley, which this show does not explicitly address. What this show chosen simply because it is primarily Spanish-speaking? If not, what members of the Latin@ community voiced support for it? What survey of the Latin@ community reinforces this decision?

In closing, we would like you to seriously reconsider your decision to cut the programming of Tertulia, urge you to restore it in full, and establish a process of public involvement that address these problems and avoids such controversies in the future.

[signed by officers of the Graduate Student Senate, the Student Government Association, and the Massachusetts Society of Professors. CC to Charlena Seymour, Provost, UMass Amherst, John Lombardi, Chancellor, UMass Amherst, Sharon Fross, the Gazette, the Republican, and the Daily Collegian]