OPINION & EDITORIAL
UW to fund discrimination
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ben Patterson:
- What would Jesus do with millions? (November 6, 2007)
- University of Wisconsin System hinges on budget allocations (October 9, 2007)
- Homeless need to find their bootstraps and pull up (September 25, 2007)
- Bush veto puts spotlight on incompetent government (May 4, 2007)
- UW to fund discrimination (April 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Anti-Catholic bias may fuel dispute (April 25, 2007)
- Once bitten... (December 14, 2005)
- Neutrality violations rampant in SSFC (December 14, 2005)
- 'Exclusionary' rule unconstitutional (October 18, 2005)
- UWRCF victim of blatant hypocrisy (March 7, 2006)
by Ben Patterson
Friday, April 20, 2007
Last week something happened. Something that I thought the United States was beyond. It didn't make national news, and probably didn't strike anyone as a big deal, but it should have. The University of Wisconsin Roman Catholic Foundation breached a contract: the U.S. Constitution.
The UWRCF has a long history of problems with UW's Student Services Finance Committee. The SSFC has, according to the UWRCF, been discriminating against them by withholding funds, which on a larger scale is a violation of their freedom of assembly under the First Amendment. Last week, a judge ruled in favor of the UWRCF's receiving segregated student funding. Last time I checked, I went to a public school.
I've had a hard time understanding why the UWRCF has even had the right to complain that they were being discriminated against. The University of Wisconsin has been a public institution since its creation, which in effect means it receives funding from state and federal taxpayers (i.e., everybody), tuition payments and donations. I worry that everyone has forgotten about that other little part of the First Amendment — the separation of church and state.
The UWRCF has claimed that they are a student organization open to all, thereby in line to receive funding through the university's student segregated fees. I, myself, am the furthest thing from Roman Catholic, yet the money my family pays for tuition, for taxes, and through donations is going to wind up in the hands of a Roman Catholic foundation?
There are two levels of hypocrisy going on here. The first is the simple fact that the U.S. District Court is requiring SSFC to support a religion-focused group. The second is that our university is actually supporting a religious group. So, the state courts and this university have decided that all taxpayers and students are going to endorse Catholicism now? Isn't that an infringement on my rights, not the UWRCF's?
I would question whether a person with Islamic beliefs would get a warm welcome from the UWRCF. Would their views be tolerated? The UWRCF is a discrimination-oriented group by definition. They meet in order to maintain a Catholic presence on our campus and potentially spread their beliefs. Some might argue that the UWRCF would not be against other religious-oriented student groups receiving funding. Isn't this the same religion that believes only Christians can be saved from hell? If they do want to argue on those grounds, it's purely political, and even hypocritical of them.
On the St. Paul's University Catholic Center website, which is the acting website of the UWRCF, the group posts a mission statement. The statement is as follows: "As Christ's Catholic community at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, we live our baptismal call to grow in holiness through prayer and worship nourished in the Eucharist, to proclaim the Gospel in word and deed, and to reach out, welcome in, and send forth all for the greater glory of God." In effect, part of your tuition, and your tax dollars are being used to support this mission statement. Now, I am in no way trying to take away from any person's religious freedoms or beliefs, but how can the university stand and watch as the tuition dollars of more than 40,000 students are being spent to endorse one specific religion?
There is a larger issue going on here than the UWRCF or U.S. courts are seeing. UW should not forcibly deny the UWRCF's right to assemble, for that would be an infringement on their right to assembly; rather they should not endorse or support them. The fact that the U.S. Constitution declares that no state institution should have any established religion is a clear and concise idea that has been overlooked.
UWRCF seems as though it is a group in dire need of funding and support, but by no means should any of that funding come from unknowing and potentially unwilling donors. If UWRCF wants to exist, it should exist within its own means, funded by willing donors with Roman Catholic beliefs in mind. The U.S. Court System has failed all of us by refusing to uphold the U.S. Constitution and may have ultimately proved that this, unfortunately, is only a Christian nation.
Ben Patterson (bpatterson@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 2:07am):
While I do agree that it is somewhat unfair that we (the student body) have to pay to support a group that claims they are not an 'exclusive group' and a group that promotes a religious presence on campus there is a small flaw. That is the fact that if UW were to deny funding to UWRCF based on the fact that they promote something that everyone may not agree with...they would have to deny funding to many of the other organizations on campus.
Take the LGBTCC for example. They work to promote equal rights and safety for all LGBTQ students on campus and some people do not agree with that. Does that mean they should be denied funding? NO!
Every organization on campus states that they are open to anyone that wishes to join but obviously people are going to feel like they can't join a certain group. If someone were to join the LBGTCC that didn't identify as LGBT or an ally they would feel out of place but I doubt the staff in that office would be any less welcoming to them. That is why, in my opinion, the ruling was handed down in such a way (despite the borderline breach of sep of church and state) that if they were to deny funding to UWRCF almost every group on campus would not be allowed to receive segregated fees.
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 8:00am):
Somebody clearly has never read any Supreme Court cases on the subject . . .
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 9:18am):
Who cares if Catholics are discriminated against?! Look at all the crap they got away with for nearly 2,000 years. It's about time they got their butts kicked.
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 10:46am):
2:07's argument is spot on. This seems to suggest that seg fees should go away!
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 11:28am):
Have you read the Southworth case? The one that a UW-Madison student filed in opposition to having to pay segregated fees that went to student organizations he didn't agree with? That Supreme Court case is why the RCF-UWM can receive funding.
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 12:21pm):
I would have to agree with the above comment. Also, this is a student group and as long as it follows the bylaws to receive funding (which it now has decided to) then it should receive some of the segregated fees. My fees go out to groups who have views I don't agree with. But you know what? It happens. Get over it.
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 12:38pm):
First of all, seg fees are paid for by students as an addition to tuition - the UWRCF isn't supported by taxpayers. Second, explicitly religious activities - ie worship, aren't funded by seg fees. The UWRCF activities that are funded by seg fees are open to everyone, and I speak from experience because I've used their services even though I'm not Catholic.
Get your facts straight and actually do a little investigating before you publish next time.
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 2:00pm):
agreed, every student organization focuses on a specific segment of the student population.
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 4:24pm):
you apparently don't know how the seg fee system works or how the money is used by groups across campus. in short, you are an idiot for spreading this piece of misinformation.
Anonymous (April 20, 2007 @ 4:58pm):
This is one of the most misinformed articles I have ever read. The UWRCF doesn't get taxpayer funding - it gets seg fee funding. If you don't like seg fees then vote for different ASM representatives.
The other thing I never understood about this whole controversy is why the Catholics (of which I am not one) are being singled out. The Hillel, Protestant and even (contary to what this ridiculous article states) Muslim groups all get campus funding - why aren't they being targeted as well?
I'm probably more sympathetic to those who would argue that religous groups shouldn't get the student money. But the facts of this case - of which this article does a very poor job in assessing - ultimately merit the UWRCF's charges that they are facing religious bigotry.
Anonymous (April 21, 2007 @ 2:20pm):
Come on 4:58, you're not REALLY surprised that the Muslim funding isn't being attacked.
Nobody wants a death fatwa after all.
Anonymous (April 21, 2007 @ 3:21pm):
Get rid of all seg fees, they are garbage anyhow. Most of the organizations they fund are exclusive, discriminatory (or whatever else you want to call it). For example, WISPIRG wishes to see that I never work again, they want to close down an industry I have taken time to get an education on, while not one of those in the organization has a clue about the industry other than trash spewed by a bunch of well educated (but not in the industry) blow hards. I can name many others, while they say they allow all to participate, just by their nature, discriminate (and much much worse than the Catholics).
Anyhow, the last I saw, seg fees were in no way establishing a religion, thus funding the Catholics is not in violation of the first Amendendment. Perhaps you should get an education in the Constitution. Then we could also discuss whether the US Constitution, in whole, applies to the States. In the case of the first, it states Congress shall not pass... considering Congress is also defined in the Constitution, and that is a Fed body, one would question whether that part of the first even applies to State governments.
Unless of course, you wish to consider to consider the liberal Constitution, which states, the government has to take away from the rich to give to me unless I don't agree with it, then it is unConstitutional.
Anonymous (April 22, 2007 @ 9:13pm):
Ha Ha liberals of ASM reap what you sow! Remember a vote of "no" on any budget is a Viewpoint Neutrality Violation...
- Germain E. Stemme
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 12:45pm):
This opinion is based upon ignorance and hate. A tribute to the quality of the Herald....
Anonymous (May 16, 2007 @ 8:28pm):
The idiot who wrote this clearly needs months of constutional rights classes. He has no idea what he is talking about. Anyone, even a ten could tell that this person is making this all up based on his biased, uninformed opinion.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
