Most journalism types can tell tales into the night about the contentious relationships their college newspapers had with their respective student governments. High-and-mighty journalism students like nothing more than exposing college senators of corruption, their violations of meetings laws or breaches of student government policies. In return, student government types relish in putting student newspapers in their places, writing shrill letters to the editor in response to the student newspaper's "yellow journalism" and publicly ridiculing the press during government meetings and functions. Ah, the memories.

As much as I'd like to say I stayed above the fray, I can't. In the tradition of Woodward and Bernstein, I felt it my duty to expose those who abused their power and their positions. In retrospect, the "scandals" rarely warranted the column inches and the play the stories received. It served a purpose in that members of student government understood that they needed to be accountable for their actions — if only because some cub reporter was only too eager to tell the whole campus when they were not.

The college newspaper and the student government are learning laboratories. They're safe places for budding journalists and politicians to make mistakes and hopefully learn from them. While neither group can claim they're the ideal in their respective idioms, credit the adult advisers who offer their best advice and step aside to permit student senators and scribes to work things out (or not) on their own. It's how people learn to operate in the real world. That is, if they're permitted to do so.

The recent controversy about student leaders at Utah Valley State College inviting filmmaker Michael Moore to the campus next month has some Utah lawmakers questioning how student fees are used, Moore's $40,000 speaking fee and the content of Moore's message. Student leaders are attempting to bring in a speaker to balance Moore's liberal point of view, perhaps conservative radio talk-show host Sean Hannity.

No question, UVSC students should have some say-so about how their student fees should be spent. Students who live on campus probably get the greatest benefit from student fees. Commuter students, many of whom are balancing their studies with jobs and families, don't have the luxury of time to attend speeches or other events funded by student fees. There should be some mechanism to address that inequity and how student fees are spent. But these debates need to take place on college campuses, not in the statehouse.

Lawmakers are, undoubtedly, getting an earful about Moore's selection to speak at UVSC. As elected officials, they have an obligation to their constituents to make some inquiries. But is it their place to legislate how student fees should be spent?