NEWS
SSFC debates need for new sex devices
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Micah S. Berken:
- ASM reps accused of improper solicitation (March 25, 2003)
- Panel asks: Are we colorblind? (February 21, 2003)
- Money allocated to campus recreational centers (February 25, 2003)
- SSFC approves budget requests (February 25, 2003)
- ASM distills recent drama on the air (February 18, 2003)
Related Stories:
- SSFC approves funds for PAVE, Catholic group and SAFE Nighttime Services (October 30, 2003)
- Diversity Education Program, Sex Out Loud submit budget requests (October 5, 2004)
- Sex Out Loud comes out on top (October 13, 2006)
- Two more funding requests OK'd; Sex Out Loud asks for nearly $100,000 (October 10, 2006)
- SSFC reduces requested budgets of WISPIRG, DEP (October 7, 2003)
by Micah S. Berken
Thursday, October 24, 2002
Things got hot late Wednesday night as the conversation turned to anatomical devices, condoms and the need for lubrication at the Student Services Finance Committee meeting.
Sex Out Loud, a group that focuses on sex education, appealed to the board specifically on its need for program supplies, which was voted against in a previous meeting. While the group itself wasn’t denied funding, its budget for services such as condom distribution was cut.
Citing the costs of venereal-disease treatment, abortions and raising a child, SOL reps Megan Benson and George Jungbluth stated that the group’s method of giving away condoms actually saves students money and should not be cut from its budget.
SSFC rep. Ryan Nichols, who led the opposition to the appeal, questioned whether the group could use the money budgeted to them more effectively. He specifically targeted the distribution of condoms, as well the purchase of plastic human models used to demonstrate contraception.
“Rationing condoms is an effective solution,” Nichols said. “A piece of anatomy can be used over and over again. They need responsibility in the way they’re doing it.”
In response, Jungbluth said that condom distribution is monitored closely. “No one’s taking a shoebox over to our meetings (to fill it up with condoms),” he said. “We know the value of these safer sex items because we watch them dwindle in our office.”
Despite the arguments, SOL’s appeal was denied after SSFC rep. Drew Horn, who originally voted to abstain, changed his vote to fail the motion.
“I don’t understand that definition of viewpoint-neutrality,” said Jungbluth after the meeting.
Benson felt the committee didn’t pay attention to the group’s reasoning.
“It was selective hearing,” she said. “They didn’t listen to anything pertinent. It really affects the services we provide. We serve more people in a week than voted for them.”
Other budgets approved included the SAFE Nighttime Services group at $242,863.
The Vets for Vets budget was approved at $27,700 after little debate.
The Student Leadership Program budget was also approved at $31,311.
The next committee meeting will decide the budgets of the Multicultural Student Center and WSUM student radio.
