OPINION & EDITORIAL
Next stop on the gravy train
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:
- I think I can, I think I can... (December 3, 2007)
- Last stop on the gravy train? (August 31, 2007)
- Separate but viewpoint neutral (April 20, 2006)
- An open letter to Chancellor Wiley (December 2, 2001)
- Riding the Gravy Train: Seg Fees 101 (August 6, 2007)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
We have written before about the out-of-control monstrosity that is the University of Wisconsin's student-segregated fee system, and its ineptitude is on display for the entire campus to see once again. A letter from Chancellor John Wiley last week highlights a plethora of legal problems with the Associated Students of Madison's proposed budget, but of particular interest to us is the continuing snafu that has come from the UW Roman Catholic Foundation.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge John Shabaz issued a statement making it absolutely clear UW cannot exercise its nondiscrimination policy as a basis for withholding funding from a registered student organization. To do so, according to Mr. Shabaz, would be a violation of freedom of association as protected by the First Amendment.
In this case, the UWRCF is now free to collect more than $250,000 per year in segregated fees — money tacked on to every UW student's tuition bill. But unless you're willing to pledge your adherence to Catholic dogma, you might not be allowed to join if the UWRCF takes advantage of this new clause.
That might seem like no big deal — after all, what non-Catholic would want to join UWRCF? But the nondiscrimination policy was an important distinction to make in justifying driving up the cost of a UW education, because at least in theory anyone on campus could join. However, with Mr. Shabaz's ruling, a UW student could be prohibited from joining a student organization that he or she is forced to fund.
UW spokesperson John Lucas told a Badger Herald reporter earlier this month that the nondiscrimination policy will still apply to other student organizations and will continue to prohibit other types of discrimination. But exactly where is that line drawn? Is it only religious groups that can discriminate? And under the hugely impractical albatross that is "viewpoint neutrality," exactly what now stops a group from discriminating on the basis of sex, gender or race?
Ironically, we hope the courts ultimately do hold UW to an extreme interpretation of viewpoint neutrality and strike down the university's nondiscrimination policy. On a campus that rightfully places so much value on diversity and maintaining an inclusive climate, perhaps this will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
Instead of squabbling over the technicalities of UWRCF's funding eligibility, UW should practice true "viewpoint neutrality" and fund every student organization on campus the same — by giving them nothing.
Would this mean the end for some student organizations? Probably, but the groups that do survive will be the ones that provide an actual service to campus. Student organizations worth their mettle will find alternative sources of funding — whether it be selling a product, holding fundraisers, collecting dues or lobbying for funding from national special interest groups.
Surely, this is an unwelcome suggestion for those student organizations currently riding the gravy train, but we don't anticipate such a policy would turn UW into the Siberia of student organizations. The system in place here is unique across the nation, and some of the most active groups on this campus — the College Democrats, Habitat for Humanity and, yes, The Badger Herald, to name a few — get along just fine without participating in the annual fleecing of students' pockets.
The grand total for most students this year was a $730 surcharge on their tuition bills. In an age where students and administrators alike bemoan tuition increases and dwindling state funding, that is a significant amount of money. We hope Mr. Shabaz's ruling will help convince some others the time for change is now.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 8:39am):
I guess you are not done beating the dead horse yet.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:12am):
It's JUDGE Shabaz, not MR. Shabaz. Even if you disagree with him, he's still a federal JUDGE.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:18am):
How are segregated fees a dead horse? On the contrary, the "gravy train" seems to be alive and well!
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 9:31am):
yeah, how is it a dead horse if we're still paying seg fees?
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 10:25am):
Viewpoint neutrality has nothing to do with funding (or not funding) all viewpoints - it has to do with evaluating an organization based on criteria apart from their viewpoint. For example - Does the organization promote student leadership? Does the organization provide a service to the campus community? The point of seg fees is that we all pay into a pool of money that anyone can use. Don't like any of the 700-some student orgs on campus? Start your own! Then let's see you push private fundraising as the cure-all for this silly debate. Some of the student orgs on this campus do amazing work - if we had to spend our time raising money to fund that work, it would never get done. Please, do some research on the idea of seg fees and viewpoint neutrality (or at least look it up in a dictionary) before you write absurd opinion pieces.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 10:47am):
One great thing about a University is that it promotes the free exchange of ideas. You'll sometimes here the cliche "Marketplace of Ideas" description. This is an important part of student life and the academic experience.
I disagree entirely with the Herald editorial board's call to give every student group nothing.
This is a very important conversation on campus, and it is not done justice in this article. The Herald should take another look at student fees and rethink it's narrow stance. There are a lot of valuable experiences afforded by Student Groups on campus.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 11:01am):
Dead-on.
Get rid of seg fees. The vast majority of these groups waste this money at an unbelievable rate.
This isn't a partisan issue at all. I'm one of hundreds of campus liberals that is sick of the gravy train.
-Former ASMer
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 11:05am):
"The Badger Herald, to name a few -- get along just fine without participating in the annual fleecing of students' pockets." I'd like to see how well the Herald does without all the advertising dollars it receives from student organizations which get their funding from Seg Fees. The Herald again makes the argument to completely abolish Seg Fees, guess what it's never going to happen, to many student organizations & departments use that funding. So instead of beating a horse that's not going to die, why not figure out a way to make the horse healthier? The Herald would rather complain as they always do and not offer ideas. Why not place a cap on what groups can receive.
I'd also like to note that I believe that most SSFC members pass these budgets because they are afraid of being accused of violating "viewpoint neutrality" and being sued by a student organization. When an SSFC member is sued they don't have the resources to help them, the university who's policies they are trying to uphold won't provide an attorney and they are not allowed to use Seg Fees to pay attorney cost either. So they pass the budget on to Wiley and he then gets sued, but he at least has the resources available to defend himself.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 11:23am):
Agreed. Seg fees are absurdly wasteful. Beat away, Badger Herald.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 12:53pm):
Yes, just keep beating, and I'll probably do what I can to join you again next year in doing so -- the seg fee system is ridiculous, and your editorial and recommendation are dead on.
"Don't like any of the 700-some student orgs on campus? Start your own! Then let's see you push private fundraising as the cure-all for this silly debate."
I, along with a group of about 10 others, did -- the Wisconsin Journal of Science. WISCI receives 0 dollars from the seg fee "cookie jar", and does just fine -- indeed, it's growing quickly in both popularity and raised funds. We have a few people dedicated part-time to raising funds -- turns out, the method works, and it does not *at all* detract from the productivity of the organization itself. Illumination: The Undergraduate Journal of Humanities does the same exact thing, and it works for them as well.
So *stop* using this tired, lethargic-sounding argument, which multiple organizations on campus have shown there's no real truth to, and *stop* sucking the money out of my pockets to fund unworthy and unwanted activities and crusades.
-- Erick Butzlaff
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 1:37pm):
Down around the corner
A half a mile from here
You can see them big gravy trains run
And you hope they disappear
Without seg fees...
How rich would you be now?
Without seg fees...
You know I saw UWRCF
Down along the tracks
They lost St. Paul's and the congregation
And they won't be coming back
Without seg fees...
How rich would you be now?
Without seg fees...
Rock on herald edboard!
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 1:49pm):
"Don't like any of the 700-some student orgs on campus? Start your own! Then let's see you push private fundraising as the cure-all for this silly debate."
What about students who think it is unethical to collect segregated fees? Certainly some people are eligible to collect unemployment but elect not to because they believe it is immoral to do.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 1:51pm):
Seg Fees can be wasteful, so let's make them more efficient! For a school known to bring in the best and the brightest students, who taught this editor that when confronted with a problem, just get rid of the whole system? But if we got rid of seg fees, what would this idiot editor write about? Maybe he wants to get rid of the entire University next.
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 5:38pm):
Amen.
- Germain E. Stemme
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 6:00pm):
If you want to get rid of segregated fees - you might as well kiss the free exercise facilities of the SERF and NAT goodbye, along with the free health care provided by UHS AND the use of the Memorial Union and Union South.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 12:49am):
6:00 pm- if you get rid of seg fees, you can take the $730 you save and spend a FRACTION of it for the services you actually want to use. Whether its SERF or NAT or UHS or anything else.
If, you argue, these services won't exist for students to pay for, then they're clearly not worth the trouble anyway.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 4:29pm):
I'm severely disappointed by the blatant lack of understanding by the Editorial Board on the issue of viewpoint neutrality. 10:25am hit it right on the head. Viewpoint neutrality has nothing to do with funding all organizations equally or not at all, but about the work a group is able to accomplish, the opportunities they provide, and the marketplace of ideas. Please do your research before you publish an editorial.
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 11:10am):
UWRCF is riding the Gravy Train and they know it. Maybe they should look at why they are short of funds in the first place, before leaching off a failed student org funding system.
So I agree completely, no seg fee's for student org's.
Anonymous (May 5, 2007 @ 3:33am):
"...the College Democrats, Habitat for Humanity and, yes, The Badger Herald, to name a few -- get along just fine without participating in the annual fleecing of students' pockets."
Actually, the Habitat for Humanity received hundreds of dollars for an operations grant.
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.
