Wow. We all know that’s bullshit. Of course both groups serve 51% students. We can’t fund American Indian or Women students but we can fund the Catholics with shit tons of money from their white donors. Awesome.

“in the 2008-09 fiscal year, [Campus Women’s Center] received $125,261.11 and again received funding for the 2009-10 year totaling $133,199.80.” Who does the research on these articles? In 2008-09, CWC received ~$84,500; in 2009-2010, they received ~$100,700.

Can the Badger Herald please start checking their facts BEFORE publishing a story. I understand that does require effort, but it would be nice to be able to TRUST what is supposed to be a factual article.

This is absurd. Women make up half of this campus, and the main group to offer resources, empowerment, advocacy, and workshops - not to mention leaders in women-based community activism - is denied funding? CWC is one of the only groups on campus to provide support services to non-traditional students with children and a safe space for women to address issues unique to their gender. How many men are on the SSFC?

Take that campus women’s center! They can’t offer 51% direct services because they only offer services to women! Women should just be a man and deal with their problems.

I think these eligibility hearings should be done with. Leave the decision of who gets funding to the people paying the seg. fees… all students. NOT JUST CARL FERGUS.

The predominantly male SSFC comes in with their own biases. Especially with Carl Fergus and his comparison of providing child care for student parents who may have class during the day/night, to providing a maid service for students… completely ignorant.

In any case, this article is a piece of crap. I would say that the reporter is as ignorant as the committee members, but he/she may be even worse than that. If you want to educate the campus about what is going on, do it correctly, or don’t do it at all. These student papers need to be more selective.

@2:42 PM,

That violates Viewpoint Neutrality Laws.

@2:54,

Actually, that is a fair comparison. Both the cleaning and the child care would provide a service which would allow the student to do other things, however, the service itself is not educational.

grumble grumble liberals grumble grumble

Yo, 12:54—women have made up over half the entering classes for the past several years. Google it. After you get done, go back to whatever cave you came from.

Nice bigoted comment, 9:21. Either Badger Catholic, CWC, and Wunk Sheek all deserve funding or none of them do.

“Take that campus women’s center! They can’t offer 51% direct services because they only offer services to women!” 1) This statement makes no sense because the campus is 52% women and the Campus Women’s Center uses a majority of funds on services to students. Non sequitur? 2) You know nothing of the Women’s Center. The Women’s Center’s mission statement is to end oppression, for which men play an integral role. Also, it’d be hard say that men don’t take advantage of most of the ~50,000 condoms distributed each year, etc., etc.

Wow. this is absurd and outrageous! I feel as tho they were targeting both of these groups. 1 in 4 women are the victims of sexual assault by the time they leave college and the women’s center provides them services. not to mention a host of powerful events and a vital safespace. the SSFC disgusts me.

i’m wondering why this was buried on page four instead of the main headline. half of the campus just lost a huge resource. where’s the shock and outrage?

yea, these are decisions that should be left up to all the students; every monday and thursday from 6:30pm to midnight we should let any student that wants to come into Camp Randall and everybody can yell what they think until everybody gets angry and someone throws a rock.

Horrible horrible horrible. Racism, sexism, power tripping at its worst. I am one of hundreds of people on campus who have been directly served by Wunk Sheek’s work. Since when are events not considered a service? Oh! That’s right! When they don’t benefit that white guy making all the decisions. Please. How about making the campus a little more isolating and dehumanizing for students of color and Native students. How about information and services for victims of sexual assault not be considered services. Are you kidding me?

And people wonder why UW Madison has such a hard time recruiting “minority” students. It’s all good though, by 2030 the people that voted not to fund CWC and Wunk Sheek WILL be the “minorities.”

“Leave the decision of who gets funding to the people paying the seg. fees… all students.”

Brilliant idea. Let’s take a student body that can barely muster a 7% voter turnout for student government elections and turn it into a direct democracy. I see absolutely no problems with this whatsoever.

“Horrible horrible horrible. Racism, sexism, power tripping at its worst. I am one of hundreds of people on campus who have been directly served by Wunk Sheek’s work. Since when are events not considered a service? Oh! That’s right! When they don’t benefit that white guy making all the decisions. Please. How about making the campus a little more isolating and dehumanizing for students of color and Native students. How about information and services for victims of sexual assault not be considered services. Are you kidding me?”

Events have not been considered services since the criteria for GSSF funding were changed last year. ASM bylaw 2.023(c)(2)(c): “Direct service shall mean any program offered by the group which possess all of the following characteristics: ….(5)The program is not an individual event, series of events, publication, or a leadership development opportunity for group member(s)

Regardless of who they are for, events cannot be direct services. By the way, 4/8 of the voting members of SSFC that night are minorities, and two are women. Im glad you did your research.

11:30 PM- “How about information and services for victims of sexual assault not be considered services. Are you kidding me?”

ASM contracts these services out to the Rape Crisis Center, professionals in their field who do a lot of great work.

I am sure the members of SSFC don’t enjoy denying groups funding, but if groups applying for eligibility do not meet the minimum criteria, then they do not qualify. End of story. The mission and nature of the groups ideals are not taken into consideration when making decisions, and this is to maintain view point neutrality and ensure consistency of rulings from year to year, irregardless of who is on SSFC at the time.

disempowerment for all

hmm. weren’t cwc and wunk sheek groups that opposed the constitution? and weren’t they quietly threatened that if they tried to stop the constitution from passing, that their group would regret it come funding time….

bah

@criteriasays in response to 2:54pm,

As for whether that meets the eligibility criteria for SSFC, that is a technicality issue I am not trying to address.

However, the comparison of providing childcare for student parents to providing maid service for students is not at all fair. Childcare is not a chore or a luxury, but often a time conflict issue for a lot of these parents who have class or meetings. Student parents should not be discriminated against for pursuing higher education while having children, especially because this very issue is what holds many women back from pursuing higher education. Student parents make many sacrifices regular students could not dream of, and they should not be penalized for not being able to afford childcare on the days they have classes or have to defend their dissertation. Students who don’t want to or can’t clean up after themselves is a completely different issue.

On behalf of my former graduate student mother, I would have to say you are very wrong.

GUYS. It’s 51% of ACTIVITIES, not 51% of STUDENTS. It doesn’t matter how many students might be affected by an organization’s activities, but 51% of its activities must be direct services (as opposed to events). These two groups clearly did not meet that standard. Maybe next year they will have a better strategy. Get over it.

Why are only 2 of 8 SSFC members women? If 52% of the UW Madison student body is female, there are two problems. First, women need to run for more of those seats, at least two. But, more importantly, what is keeping more women from running in the first place?

“Take that campus women’s center! They can’t offer 51% direct services because they only offer services to women! Women should just be a man and deal with their problems”

Women make up 52% of the student body— a majority on campus. It’s really telling that even when they make up the majority, women still must fight marginalization. This is a prime example of institutional prejudice.

I find it REALLY annoying that Badger Catholic, whose goal is to indocrinate students, gets funded while organizations like CWC do not. Obviously there’s something wrong with these qualifications that the organizations need to meet to get funding if a group dedicated to empowering women, dealing with issues related to sexual assault, etc. can’t get funded but a group whose self-described characteristics are “Christianity, Religion, Jesus Christ, Catholicism, Bible Study” can.

It’s pointless to argue whether or not CWC and Wunk Sheek meet the regulations…apparently they don’t. Therefore, the REAL problem IS the regulations. I think it would be more effective to fight to change these obviously biased regulations whose effect (and possibly purpose) seems to be to shut out groups who do not serve the upper-middle class, white, Christian male from receiving funding.

On top of that, it’s annoying that a small group of people can determine what organizations receive funding. Let’s have the students vote. So what is ~10% of the student body are the only ones who vote? If they care enough to vote, they’ll be the ones who are actually informed anyway. Better that than having 90% of the voters have no idea about what they’re voting for.