The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

UWRCF victim of blatant hypocrisy

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Darryn Beckstrom:

Ignorance, irresponsibility doom broken segregated fee system (November 15, 2005)
State should endorse monotheism (November 22, 2005)
Neutrality violations rampant in SSFC (December 14, 2005)
Acidic justice (June 30, 2005)
New course for Madison in 2006 (January 15, 2006)

by Darryn Beckstrom

Tuesday, March 7, 2006

Sometimes things can start to sound like a broken record.

Last Thursday, the Student Services Finance Committee presented Chancellor Wiley with next year's student organization budgets for his approval. The UW Roman Catholic Foundation is among the recipients of funding in a budget totaling more than $27 million.

After numerous appeals before the student judiciary and council, UWRCF's allotment of more than $147,000 seems to be the only organization drawing protest — from both within and outside the university.

In her letter to Chancellor Wiley last week, Freedom from Religion Foundation President Annie Gaylor urged Mr. Wiley to "veto the misguided decision by students." Ms. Gaylor referred to UWRCF's funding as an "unlawful and misguided expenditure by students — who are not attorneys and have been intimidated by a powerful non-student institution … ."

Of course, Ms. Gaylor is not an attorney, either. And her letter to Mr. Wiley demonstrates this fact quite clearly because her acumen of the law seems to be deficient.

In the 1995 Supreme Court decision of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, a group of students had requested to use student fees to publish Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective. However, a policy at the public university stated that fees could not be used to fund the publication because it "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality."

Indeed, it was patently obvious the publication carried a religious message. The first issue stated that the newspaper seeks to offer a "Christian perspective on both personal and community issues, especially those relevant to college students at the University of Virginia."

Yet the high court held the university engaged in viewpoint discrimination when denying the publication funding on the basis of their religious message. The court held the rejection of funding by the university was "a denial of the right of free speech and would risk fostering a pervasive bias or hostility to religion, which could undermine the very neutrality the Establishment Clause requires."

Justice Kennedy eloquently articulated the threat viewpoint discrimination presents to our society and individual liberty — especially in a university setting. He wrote in Rosenberger, "That danger is especially real in the University setting, where the State acts against a background and tradition of thought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition."

Rosenberger has hit close to home once again in the case of UWRCF.

In an interview with The Badger Herald, Mr. Wiley remarked, "I can't take forward [to the Board of Regents] something I know to be illegal." Referring to UWRCF's budget, he continued, "So we will do a legal analysis of a few items of the proposed budget, and if they are illegal, I can't take them forward."

I might have an idea of what could be changed.

The chancellors' representatives on SSFC this past year seemed quite reluctant to grant UWRCF funding for the rent and utilities portion of their budget. A memo originating from the Dean of Students Office and presented to SSFC stated that university funds "cannot be used to directly support the operating costs of a church or a strictly church-related activity … ."

However, UWRCF operates solely as a non-profit organization, and the mere consideration of the religious viewpoint of the recipient of student funds violates the very essence of viewpoint neutrality. So the DSO changed their position and found another memo for SSFC to use to deny UWRCF funding. They argued UWRCF's rent and utilities could not be funded because SSFC could not fund the rent or overhead of non-university controlled properties.

Once again, the DSO has found itself in a bit of a quagmire.

The memo has only been applied to UWRCF. Other organizations, including the Tenant Resource Center, Wisconsin Public Interest Group, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow and WSUM — among other organizations — receive segregated fee funding to cover rent, utilities and overhead costs for non-university controlled buildings.

But, then again, this hypocrisy should only be seen as predictable. After all, it was the chancellor's representative to SSFC, Interim Associate Dean of Students Elton Crimm, who paid a visit to the committee last semester to question whether UWRCF should even receive segregated fee funding. No other student organization received such special attention.

Ms. Gaylor concluded her letter to Mr. Wiley by stating that "Even given today's courts, we do not believe judges will uphold outright subsidy of worship through a public institution."

Yet this nation's highest court has reasoned otherwise. And if a federal judge wouldn't tolerate this viewpoint discrimination, the administrators of this university and the UW System shouldn't sustain it either.

Darryn Beckstrom (beckstrom@badgerherald.com) is a doctoral student in the department of political science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (March 7, 2006 @ 8:25am):

"Of course, Ms. Gaylor is not an attorney, either. And her letter to Mr. Wiley demonstrates this fact quite clearly because her acumen of the law seems to be deficient."

This is written by someone who is also not an attorney. So what makes you fit to judge someone else's legal acumen?

"Sometimes things can start to sound like a broken record."

Your column comes to mind.

Anonymous (March 7, 2006 @ 9:41am):

Which is worse: the two organizations (CFACT and UWRCF -- both requested over 200% in budgetary increases this year)received a little bit more scrutiny from the members of the SSFC -or- that both organizations denied any form of a budget cut as fiscal responsiblity by the SSFC -and- instead overly manipulated all legal means to become two of the three most expensive budgets this year?

Anonymous (March 7, 2006 @ 4:00pm):

And those two conservative groups still don't come close to touching what other lefty organizations take in.

Anonymous (March 7, 2006 @ 5:53pm):

while i agree with you.... you really do need to start picking a different topic to write about. its just getting old

J-Lou (March 7, 2006 @ 9:07pm):

Oh, cripes -- this debate is about as old as the SSFC (see articles going back to 2001, at least). This is the whole problem with a "viewpoint-neutral" system -- it is impossible to be wholly viewpoint-neutral.

For example, if you fund the UW Roman Catholic Foundation, you must also fund a Flying Spaghetti Monster Association (http://www.venganza.org/). It's impossible to justify the funding of one without also justifying the funding of the other. Which is why viewpoint-neutrality is a big joke, and just a front for these groups to be receiving exorbitant amounts of money.

(On a side note, how on earth did the student organizations come to receive a total of $27 million? Is it any wonder tuition is through the roof? It's called fundraising, kids. Go sell some cookies or condoms or something.)

Anonymous (March 7, 2006 @ 9:32pm):

they do good things, i is run by nice people, they help students s=to have a place to go and peole to be with where alcohol and drug are not a prerequisite. I'm no catholic and I think that the hould be allowed to be here. Additionaly, they are not holding sermons in their building space. I think they are victims of lberal-crazy intolerance. In fact, UWRCF has very liberal ideals for a Christian or Catholic group. they just want to help people and make people happy. They're not Neo nazis! I am glad this was written about because know for a fact the people on SSFC are biased and incompetent bitter people. I also know the finance advisors for the student groups are nasty people. GO UWRCF!

Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 12:11am):

The biggest cuts for both CFACT and UWRCF were in fact proposed not by "liberals", but by fiscal and social conservatives.

And student orgs do not receive $27 million. The vast majority of that figure goes towards non-allocable budgets, like SERF/Nat, the Union, UHS, and the Bus Pass program. All that SSFC and council do with that money is do all the number crunching so that Chancellor Wiley has an easier job and more time to meet with rich alumni.

Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 12:47am):

J-Lou

If you knew anything about seg fees you would know that student groups did not recieve 27 million dollars in seg fees.

Millions go to fund UHS, the Memorial Union and Union South, The Serf, The Nat, Our Bus passes, and the 80
After that a lot of funding goes to the Safe Program, and money to keep ASM running.

That leaves all of the student groups on campus with about 3 million dollars. Most of that goes to larger student organizations that do substantial programming on campus and the rest goes to smaller groups to help allow them to put on programs

A lot of groups do fund raise, but if they spent as much time fundraising at it would take to put on the events that they do, they might as well not even exist because they would spend all of their time fundrasising, and no time doing usefull services to students.
Please become more informd before posting on here.

Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 6:51am):

The biggest joke is that by and large nobody really reads those stupid lenten booklets that they pass out. They smile at you, you politely take one and once you are out of sight you throw it away. Talk about wasted money!

J-Lou (March 8, 2006 @ 2:05pm):

Sorry anonymous, just reading the article:

"Last Thursday, the Student Services Finance Committee presented Chancellor Wiley with next year's student organization budgets for his approval. The UW Roman Catholic Foundation is among the recipients of funding in a budget totaling more than $27 million."

I didn't say that all that money was seg fees, or that it is allocable.

And so yes, I do think student orgs should be a little more responsible for their own funding. Assuming this group is deserving of funding, isn't $147,000 a tad on the high side for any student group? Let alone the higher numbers raked in by other groups?

As John Stossel would say, "Give me a break." You need workers and you're a worthy cause? Find some volunteers, for goodness sake!

Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 10:44pm):

Different anonymous here.
quote:
"(On a side note, how on earth did the student organizations come to receive a total of $27 million? Is it any wonder tuition is through the roof? It's called fundraising, kids. Go sell some cookies or condoms or something.)"

They do fund raise, through corporate sponsors and even hard work. Perhaps you have been to a Badger Basketball/Hockey game? The people running a lot of those stands are students volunteers for their respective RSOs. Also, please be accountable when you say "student organizations come to receive a total of $27 million." Where is this fact? I do not see any published information on this.

Anyways, in regards to this article, as to not sway off-topic, I do agree that UWCRF should not be funded nearly that amount when organizations like Polygon are unfairly zero-funded, among other groups on campus. The benefits of Polygon Engineering council are quite vast and far reaching, covering the near-entire College of Engineering campus and engineering student organizations.

If you want to change things, join ASM. The power is in our hands (the students) first, remember. This is my closing remark, and I hope that whoever reads this explores the oppurtunities available to him or her through ASM.

J-Lou (March 9, 2006 @ 9:29pm):

HA! I wouldn't touch ASM with a 30-foot pole, nor could I since I'm an alum. What ever happened to the good ol' days, when ASM rep AJ Hughes would show up drunk and call for the disbanding of ASM?

As for me, I chose the fourth estate, my friend.