OPINION & EDITORIAL
Once bitten…
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Gross incompetence (October 18, 2004)
- Neutrality violations rampant in SSFC (December 14, 2005)
- Justice is served (November 3, 2005)
- MEChA ruling has implications for campus (October 2, 2002)
- MCSC, grow up! (November 5, 2003)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Sometimes the process is more important than the outcome. Turns out this time, we don't have to choose.
On Monday night, the Student Judiciary handed down another strike against the credibility of the Student Services Finance Committee. In a nearly unanimous decision on all points, SJ found that three members of SSFC — Chair Jennifer Knox and Reps. Lorenzo Edwards and Kellie Sanders — were in violation of the viewpoint-neutrality clause, with Rep. Sanders found to be in malicious violation, resulting in her removal from the finance committee and the reversal of SSFC's decision to minimally fund Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow. Justice Josh Tyack concurred with most of the opinion, but disagreed with the majority when it came to the severity of Rep. Sanders' violation.
We not only applaud this ruling, we are encouraged to see that the Student Judiciary has once again protected the rights of students in the nebulous world of segregated-fee funding.
Since the first hearings this academic year, SSFC has shown little in the way of consistency, save for their consistent reckless disregard for process and neutrality. With their ruling in favor of the UW Roman Catholic Foundation and now CFACT, the Student Judiciary has pointed out the obvious absurdity that is SSFC.
Interestingly, ASM bylaws call for the removal of any member that accumulates two non-malicious viewpoint violations. Since both the UWRCF and CFACT cases were brought against the whole of SSFC, each member now has two such violations.
Student Judiciary noticed the same facts, but rightly declared the bylaw unconstitutional. Such broad strokes lead to nothing more than guilt by association.
However, bylaws also allow ASM to consider impeachment for individual members. Looking at the state of the committee these past few months and not trusting in SSFC's power to self-regulate, we strongly urge ASM to consider censure and, if necessary, impeachment of any SSFC member that has shown viewpoint violations.
In a time when the credibility of the not just SSFC but ASM as well is being continually called into question, it is time for our elected members to inject some much-needed integrity into student government.
Anonymous (December 14, 2005 @ 2:02am):
The Herald is too fast to completely condemn SSFC. Just because certain individuals may have erred does not mean the entire system must be destroyed. If one journalist for this newspaper, in one instance, gives factually incorrect information unintentionally, should the entire media outlet be closed down?
Anonymous (December 14, 2005 @ 10:26am):
What Credibility? Viewpoint neutrality was added to protect groups like the Greens, and WISPIRG from the random Conveservative student who realized that the spending of Seg Fee's is not now viewpoint neutral, has never been viewpoint neutral nor will it ever be under the current system. This way the wacky members of ASM had the ability to toss that conservative member out and not have to listen to them complain about stupid budgets from groups that all seem to share the same membership.
Biggest problem with the Southworth decision is that the 9 robed justices have never sat in on or participated in an SSFC meeting. It is time for the UW to adopt a system that allows every student the ability to select for themselves which student groups recieve their support. The technology is available and the SSFC can go back to rubber stamping the budets for the Nat etc... Of course, that would effectively defund much of the stupidity that is supported by ASM and would stop the need for a new lawsuit every 10 years.
Anonymous (January 15, 2006 @ 2:09am):
This reminds me of the communist purges under Stalin. It appears to be bigotry dressed up under the language of a purported "neutrality" and "diversity" that are nonexistent, as they tolerate no opposing positions, and misrepresent those who differ.
