Opinion

MCSC’s budget

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• The saga continues (November 10, 2003)
• MCSC, grow up! (November 5, 2003)
• MCSC needs to be more realistic (November 3, 2003)
• Letters to the editor (November 1, 2001)
• Render unto MCSC (September 28, 2005)

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

• The Invisible Man Award: Wyndham Manning (May 7, 2009)
• The People's Choice Award: Jacqueline Hitchon et. al (May 7, 2009)
• The Lifetime Achievement Award: ASM (May 7, 2009)
• Honest representation (May 5, 2009)
• Junger for ASM Chair (May 5, 2009)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

 

The Multicultural Student Coalition’s unprecedented application for a budget of $977,418 — an increase in student funding of 756 percent — has sparked a campus-wide discussion on diversity, the MCSC and segregated fees.

Unfortunately, until Tuesday, the MCSC did not join that discussion.

We have deliberately withheld judgment on the validity of MCSC’s request, for they were not compelled to justify their request until tonight’s SSFC hearing. However, MCSC’s secrecy regarding their request has done nothing but raise red flags.

Our commitment to fiscal responsibility in student government is well documented. But responsibility does not necessarily equal stinginess. We are also committed to diversity, and if the money requested by MCSC is being funneled towards activities that move us closer to this so-far elusive goal, then we would be willing to pay not only the approximately $20 required of each student to fund this particular request, but considerably more.

But such a large request places the burden of proof with the MCSC. The MCSC must articulate a clear goal and show how their budget will achieve that goal. Tuesday’s comments by Tshaka Barrows, the chair of MCSC, were a welcome development in this regard. However, the comments came three weeks later than they should have. MCSC should have been justifying and promoting their goals and vision from the day they fashioned their budget. Had they done so, they could have avoided the knee-jerk reactions inevitable from many responsible students, and surely encountered less rabid, or at the very least, more finely tuned skepticism.

However, by leaving students in the dark, MCSC has drawn inevitable comparisons to the administrations efforts in the area of diversity. Efforts which, to put it bluntly, are abject failures. Instead of investigating why diversity efforts are failing and holding people accountable, the administration has consistently taken the easy route and thrown money at the problem.

It is unfortunate MCSC feels the burden of correcting the administration’s shortcomings, but that is why it is especially important to not duplicate the administration’s strategy.

We share the goals of the MCSC and consider them a worthy recipient of segregated fees. Their objectives are important not just to students of color, but to every student who would benefit from a more diverse student body. That is why we are disappointed they did not delineate their goals earlier.

Regardless, we look forward to tonight’s hearing and an opportunity to judge the MCSC budget on its merits.