OPINION & EDITORIAL
Neutrality questionable in MCSC debate
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mark Baumgardner:
- A revolutionary papacy (April 4, 2005)
- Rhetorical lessons collected in Madison (May 5, 2005)
- Schiavo case overflowing with tragedies (March 29, 2005)
- Walker's responsibility ideal foil to Doyle (February 3, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Get it together (October 13, 2004)
- Baumgardner wrong about MCSC (October 14, 2004)
- The paradox of viewpoint-neutrality (November 6, 2001)
- Viewpoint neutrality is anything but neutral (September 22, 2003)
- Responsibility a must for SSFC (October 10, 2005)
by Mark Baumgardner
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
During September, the Student Services Finance Committee (SSFC) of the Associated Students of Madison considered, among many other items, the eligibility of one organization and the budget of another. Both cases deserve comment and, once again, raise the question as to whether the idea of viewpoint neutrality really works in the present system.
Recall that SSFC is one of two financial committees for ASM — our student government on campus. ASM essentially has taxing authority over students since this governing body distributes segregated fee money — a significant chunk of students’ tuition bills. Among the purposes ASM allocates this money to, a portion goes to student organizations that receive thousands of dollars in segregated fee money. SSFC has the responsibility for determining which of these groups are eligible to receive that money and the amount that they receive.
One group that applied to have their eligibility to receive segregated fees renewed for the next two fiscal years was the Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). On their web page, CFACT states, “CFACT strongly believes most consumer and environmental problems can best be met and overcome — not through excessive government regulation and bureaucracy — but rather, by better unleashing the power of the free-enterprise system and the ingenuity of science and technology.” This free-market approach makes CFACT unique, and last year, one of my colleagues on this page used CFACT as his case in point for arguing that segregated fees pay for both sides of the political spectrum.
A few years ago, in the Board of Regents v. Southworth, the Supreme Court of the United States permitted universities to assess mandatory student fees, with viewpoint neutrality as the operating principle. In complying with the ruling, ASM and the administration have chosen a system requiring viewpoint neutrality not among organizations, but rather, among ASM representatives, including those on SSFC.
When voting, SSFC first denied CFACT funding, and then later in the evening, several representatives changed their vote, acting on a motion to reconsider. One SSFC representative changing her vote, Barbara Kiernoziak, stated in discussion, “I realized that I was voting for totally the wrong reason — like I don’t like what CFACT stands for, and so ultimately when I was torn, that’s what prevailed, but it wasn’t right.”
Kiernoziak went on to argue that gray areas exist with some of the criteria that SSFC uses to evaluate organization eligibility and felt that she would, “have to not grant eligibility to a lot of other organizations,” using the standards she initially used.
Kiernoziak deserves a great deal of respect and praise for remaining consistent in her standards of evaluating eligibility, a decision that she said in a separate interview that she “felt better” about once others changed their votes.
Status quo defenders may argue that this proves the process works — if, of course, they believe the honor system is sufficient in upholding the major operating principle of viewpoint neutrality. True, Student Judiciary, the dispute resolution branch of ASM, has another check on SSFC decisions, but as noted last week, recent actions of that body have raised questions about their impartiality.
Even if a fair and impartial Student Judiciary exists, problems inherent in the system prevent consistent enforcement of viewpoint neutrality. Representatives can use gray areas in the criteria to their advantage, when, in fact, ulterior motives existed.
More importantly, Student Judiciary will never investigate viewpoint neutrality violations without a filed complaint. Because of the time and costs required for filing and arguing a viewpoint neutrality complaint, student organizations with thousands of dollars on the line have a much greater financial incentive to pursue complaints than an individual student worried about extra pocket change.
Partly for this reason, most viewpoint neutrality violation allegations stem from decisions to deny or reduce funding to an organization, but this certainly does not prove the non-existence of viewpoint neutrality violations in favor of particular groups. In fact, actions of a few members at Monday’s SSFC meeting raise this issue.
On Monday, SSFC began its decision on the Multicultural Student Coalition’s (MCSC) budget. MCSC requested approximately $482,000, and several SSFC members acted responsibly, proposing adjustments.
SSFC representatives from various backgrounds have come to understand that eventually a point of diminishing returns exists with student organization budgets — more funding does not necessarily lead to better services for more students. Even in the April 15-28, 2004 issue of the Madison Observer, a MCSC-sponsored publication at the time, one student raised the general issue of large budgets going so far as to say, “Coming from the richest student organizations on campus, I’ve learned that money does more harm than good.”
Throughout discussion of these budget adjustments, a few members of SSFC consistently held side conversations and exchanged notes with MCSC members, essentially acting as their mouthpiece on SSFC. While these SSFC members may have sincerely made their decisions on numbers and a cost-benefit analysis, one could not help but wonder whether instead, these individuals supported MCSC and its agenda and viewpoints, fervently opposing budget adjustments.
The question becomes, will any student care enough to request a Student Judiciary investigation into this matter? What will become of this investigation should it happen?
Ultimately, the answers to these questions will either help affirm or negate the principle of viewpoint neutrality in ASM.
Mark Baumgardner (mbaumgardner@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 8:00am):
Thanks for showing the intricacies and intrigue of a bureaucracy that steals students' money and then hurts them with it. I want my seg fees back!
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 9:43am):
Anonymous, instead of asking for your seg fees back, apply for your own group's funding. Ask for big money. Look at the cognitive dissonance that happened within Kiernoziak when one -- only one -- non-liberal group applied for equal funding. Imagine the fun if there were several groups.
Making you wait for a certain number of years is not viewpoint neutral, and neither is allocating funding based on the percentage of the population that agrees with your stance. Make them swallow just as hard when they pay their tuition as you do when you pay yours.
Time to open the floodgates!
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 9:55am):
I hope you're going to law school, Mark, because I doubt many engineering firms will ask you to describe your experience writing angry student fee diatribes on their job applications.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 1:12pm):
Name: Former SSFC & ASM Member
For all of you newcomers to the UW who may not understand the history of SSFC with respects to viewpoint neutrality, this article is written by an individual who was kicked off of SSFC for, guest what, violating viewpoint neutrality!!! Perhaps conflict of interest!!! Now do you think that the Editorial Board of the Badger Herald knew this when they allowed this article to be printed. Wait, one of them also sat on SSFC at the same time as Mark. That must be a coincidence.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 1:12pm):
Name: Former SSFC & ASM Member
For all of you newcomers to the UW who may not understand the history of SSFC with respects to viewpoint neutrality, this article is written by an individual who was kicked off of SSFC for, guest what, violating viewpoint neutrality!!! Perhaps conflict of interest!!! Now do you think that the Editorial Board of the Badger Herald knew this when they allowed this article to be printed. Wait, one of them also sat on SSFC at the same time as Mark. That must be a coincidence.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 1:21pm):
So the Badger Herald is still allowing someone who was kicked off of SSFC for violating viewpoint neutrality report on viewpoint neutrality. Sounds a bit contradictory, don't you think?
Let me clear this up for you. Viewpoint neutrality is when you don't allow your personal beliefs of the organization affect your decision. In order to do this you must look at what the organization has done and what they plan to do and not just how much they are asking for or what you personally think about them. The service that is provided to students' trumps how you, as an individual, feel.
Mark why don't you report on something you know about and not on something you clearly have no knowledge about. Remember that's why you were kicked off of SSFC in the first place, you didn't know what you were doing. I guess some things never change!
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 1:24pm):
Name: UW alumni
With respects to Baumgardner's comments regarding SSFC members using "gray areas to expound on ulterior motives" SJ ruling on State Langdon Neighborhood Association v. ASM Student Council: The Appeal outlines that: "Attempts to evaluate an ogranization based on 'outside-the-box' criteria or warped interpretations of the criteria's meaning are clear violations of viewpoint neutrality." Guess who sat on the ASM/SSFC the year this ruling was handed down? If you said Mark then you've answered correctly! SJ ruling on ILSA v. Clark and Baumgardner also addresses the importance of documenting your reasoning behind voting a certain way, so perhaps the more relevant question Mark should be asking is: Are the SSFC members being asked to write down and justify their reasoning behind making funding cuts?
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 1:34pm):
The fact that Mark was removed under the pretext of the so-called "viewpoint neutrality" rules only proves his point. This is simply a tool that the powerful student groups use to remove those who disagree with their shameless profiteering off of students.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 3:03pm):
Check out this quote:
"Viewpoint neutrality is when you don't allow your personal beliefs of the organization affect your decision. In order to do this you must look at what the organization has done...."
Not so. A brand new organization is every bit as eligible for significant funding as an organization with a multi-year history. Any sort of longevity requirement factored into whether or how much a group receives would be a violation of viewpoint neutrality. New viewpoints must be treated the same as old viewpoints. Minority viewpoints must be treated the same as majority viewpoints.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 3:05pm):
Hey former anonymous SSFC dumb-dumbs:
This is an opinon piece, not a news item. It's NOT SUPPOSED to be unbiased. That's what makes it OPINION.
Go ahead and refute Baumgardner's points. That's fair, and that's what you should do if you disagree with him. But try not to show your ignorance of the anatomy of a newspaper. HOW DO I WORK THIS CRAZY BADGER HERALD?! I DON'T AGREE WITH IT... IT MUST BE BROKEN!
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 4:36pm):
Viewpoint Neutrality is a sham that useless student orgs hide behind in luxury. It's a joke because so many SSFC members are members of groups that request funding. Students can't control their own money because the few SSFC reps who don't have their hands in the cookie jar can't say no - no matter how despicable, crazy, or worthless an organization is. When they do, they are slapped with a frivolous lawsuit and kicked off.
Anyone posting here who thinks less of Baumgardner because he was kicked off SSFC has been fleeced. He was kicked off by the Student Judiciary - a body more corrupt than Mark will ever be.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 4:52pm):
"Students can't control their own money because the few SSFC reps who don't have their hands in the cookie jar can't say no - no matter how despicable, crazy, or worthless an organization is."
Get your own group together and apply for funding. If they can't say no, eventually the system will collapse under its own weight.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 6:23pm):
Mark Baumgardner's article, and The Badger Herald in general, only demonstrate that they are a puppets of right-wing neoliberal corporate interests when they continually publish pieces which launch baseless attacks on student government. I have friends who have been around the UW for years, and have witnessed as the Herald has time and time again destroyed various student government organizations in the name of the tiny but well-funded & highly vocal campus right-wing groups like CFACT and the College Republicans. Might I add that these groups receive substantial funding from outside sources, mainly corporations and right-wing "think tanks."
For those who aren't familiar, The Herald was founded for the express purpose of supporting the Vietnam War with money from none other than Christian fundamentalist & televangelist Pat Robertson. Its broader mission is to promote a right-wing agenda throughout the campus, as it too receives substantial funds from corporations and right-wing "think tanks." During the TAA strike last year, the Herald editorial board declared that all the TA's picketing should be arrested! Now if that doesn't demonstrate a clear right-wing agenda, I don't know what does.
No one should take the Herald's editorials seriously because they have proven time and time again that they are motivated by the money that funds them. The reason they are able to have a larger sized paper with such a comprehensive Sports section is because of this outside funding they receive. For all those who think Madison and the UW are some bastion of left-wing liberalism, guess again. The Badger Herald, along with its city-wide counterpart the Wisconsin State Journal, only prove how corporate power twists, distorts, and undermines our democracy.
Students, don't let these attacks confuse you. The purpose of student government is to look after the interests of the students. This is exactly why they supported the Fair Wage campaign last year, and will hopefully be supporting the Tuition Freeze campaign this year. The student government is intended to be a progressively oriented organization, just as a most of the students on campus are. That does not mean it will refuse to fund groups it disagrees with, as that would undermine its very purpose. Student government is here to serve US, the student body. The Herald, on the other hand, has different priorities.
Bill Anderson
(20 bucks says they don't publish this, I submitted it to them via email as well)
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 6:44pm):
Um, Bill, what exactly are you talking about? There are no corporate interests involved at the Herald.
I sat on the Board of Directors for three years, and the Herald's only involvement with the Wisconsin State Journal is that Madison Newspapers Inc. (owner of The Capital Times as well) prints the Herald and that MNI and the Herald had (might still have) an advertising swapping agreement.
The Herald receives no outside funding from student groups (while the Cardinal operates rent-free in Vilas Hall), and generates all of its funding through the sale of advertisements.
Left- and right-wing alike have been represented in Herald editorial leaders over the past decade as the Herald became the most respected independent publishing source for the UW student body. The Herald, with its slightly diverse staff, wide range of viewpoints represented, and free spirit represents a microcosm better than anything else at UW. Why are there few people of color at the Herald? Because there are few people of color on campus, silly.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 7:06pm):
Most students on campus aren't "progressive", Bill - they're apathetic. That's why ASM continues to get away with its reckless spending. "Progressives" are just willing to take advantage of the system while most conservatives aren't.
The attacks on student government are well-grounded.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 7:12pm):
For the love of god, write about something else.
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 10:44pm):
I just wanted to clear something up about Bill's statement in his posting. CFACT does not receive any outside funding. All the funding we receive is through the students not a dime from so-called "corporate interests". It is part of our National Constitution.
With that in mind feel free to take advantage of the services we provide through our segregated fees. Our office is in University Square and please check out our webpage at cfactcampus.org/madison
Or contact me at pmccabe@cfactcampus.org with any questions or inquiries about the organization or possible internship opportunities.
Pete McCabe
Executive Director
CFACT-Madison
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 11:01pm):
Someone said:
Most students on campus aren't "progressive", Bill - they're apathetic. That's why ASM continues to get away with its reckless spending. "Progressives" are just willing to take advantage of the system while most conservatives aren't.
I agree that most are apathetic, but there is no question that the student body leans left. You claim that the conservatives don't take advantage of student government? I would like you to explain why several years ago the conservatives took over student governmand and proceeded to de-fund the UW Greens Madison Infoshop on University Square, and then replaced it with CFACT which stands to this day?
Sorry pal, but it goes both way. The real question we should be asking is why the only viewpoint either of the papers will cover in regards to this issue is the right-wing one. I think the answer is pretty clear- I already covered it in my first post.
Bill Anderson
Anonymous (September 29, 2004 @ 11:09pm):
CFACT claims:
"CFACT strongly believes most consumer and environmental problems can best be met and overcome -- not through excessive government regulation and bureaucracy -- but rather, by better unleashing the power of the free-enterprise system and the ingenuity of science and technology."
I wonder what the classical political thinkers & figures would have to say about CFACT's pro-corporate, pro-business view? Lets see here...
"The country is headed toward a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and monied incorporations and if this tendency continues it will be the end of freedom and democracy, the few will be ruling and riding over the plundered plowman and the beggar . . . I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Thomas Jefferson
"Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge...I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." -Thomas Jefferson
"To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens." -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
"[Businessmen are] an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
"The pretense that corporations are necessary to the better government of the trade is without foundation." -Adam Smith
"I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy. The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes."
-Abraham Lincoln
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
"Whomsoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
-James Garfield
"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did...they always will. They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres." -Gouvernor Morris, head of the committee that wrote the final draft of the U.S. Constitution
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power." -Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power." -Benito Mussolini
Yes, we can all see how wonderful and benevolent businesses are!! I'm sure CFACTs "pro-free-market" view is the solution to all the problems of enviromental destruction caused by corporate capitalism!!!!
Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 12:49am):
Barb is one of the few sane people in student government and knowing her personally, she takes almost every side into consideration.
Unfortunately, the administration at the UW favor the silly-minded progressives over the serious-minded anything else. Prefering pow-wows to intellectual debates.
No matter how hard anyone tries, you have to KowTow to babies who mistake issues with their rich daddies who were never there to tuck them in after they came home on a bad LSD trip with social change.
Doing anything different would be like living in Wisconsin and starting a campaign against farm subsidies.
So idealists, just shut up, shut up! The poor woman is betwixt and between.
I just hope she runs for a real office someday.
