OPINION & EDITORIAL
ASM embraces pork-barrel politics
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Bassey Etim:
- Religion: Does it benefit society? (November 29, 2007)
- Do Democrats take minority votes for granted? (November 15, 2007)
- It's the media, stupid: Political coverage misleads (November 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Pork: it's what's for your Rep's dinner (December 7, 2005)
- Babcock's dirty little secret (March 2, 2007)
- The paradox of viewpoint-neutrality (November 6, 2001)
- Fixing the problems of ASM (November 25, 2003)
- ASM must raise campus awareness (April 19, 2006)
by Bassey Etim
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
I've never written about the Associated Students of Madison before. This isn't because of a lack of knowledge or opinions about our student government. But whatever blunders they made, it's difficult to criticize a group of college students who dedicate a large portion of their lives to obscure parliamentary rules and the ever-exhilarating world of discretionary funding.
It just became much less difficult. Chancellor John Wiley's recent letter politely asking ASM to resubmit portions of its budget that violate UW System policy was met with continued defiance by ASM. Namely, it includes $89,079 in off-campus rent funding for student organizations. The chancellor has warned both ASM and the organizations in question about this potential conflict for years. Regardless, ASM refuses to change the budget, claiming it is "standing up for student rights," according to a Badger Herald report.
So does ASM expect the chancellor to break the law? Does ASM think that if it keeps throwing food off the high chair, the administration will just give up? Will perpetual stalemate with a sympathetic chancellor who is just following the rules really help its legitimacy?
ASM has proven time and again that it is more interested in placating special interest groups who live beyond their means than representing the interests of the student body. The sad thing is that despite UW's progressive reputation, our student government mirrors the national government — rarely missing a chance to dole out pork.
Indeed, the parallels to the U.S. Congress are astounding. Just replace the "bridge to nowhere" of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, with hotel bills for obscure conferences, or $250,000 yearly for UW's Roman Catholic Foundation. Our student government is like a horribly failed lab experiment under controlled conditions that has proven the pessimist's hypothesis correct: We are no less fundamentally corrupt than our parents' generation.
Where ASM sees student groups' rights to office space despite UW's logistical limitations, I see pandering to campus opinion leaders. Where it sees the formation of a vibrant campus community full of options, I see a haphazard waste of student money at a time when tuition hikes are the rule rather than the exception. How can students plead to the state for more funding to keep tuition down when our own government doesn't treat it as a serious priority?
When the gravy train fills its cavernous boxcars with more student money next year, it will get that much harder for cash-strapped Wisconsinites to attend their flagship school. The harmful effects of ASM's nickel-and-diming aren't immediately obvious. A few dollars here or there add straws to the strain on the state's financial aid system, while students who work their way through school find it that much harder to balance the checkbook and are increasingly tempted to take out additional private loans.
ASM has abdicated its primary responsibility to the student body — to keep tuition low and fight those who seek to fleece us. Ironically, the ASM symbol is chains of the administration being broken — and they have been. The only problem is that student government has escaped into oncoming traffic. It plays a game of "Frogger" with our cash and the joystick is perpetually jammed.
"No off-campus rent" is not an unreasonable rule, and why ASM insists on breaking UW System policy to make students pay that much more goes beyond any conceivably valid logic. But thankfully for restless students, ASM recently lowered the maximum T-shirt budget from $500 to $300.
Nonetheless, there is validity in the argument that allocable segregated fees contribute to the campus climate, and that having so many groups available without membership dues creates a vibrant community where students always have the option to get involved. But why go beyond just keeping these groups afloat if that is the goal? It's one thing to ask Joe student to make a contribution to the campus climate, but unseemly to demand he bankrolls obscure and unnecessary activities.
With the help of an advanced political correctness decoder, I will transcribe Chancellor Wiley's letter to ASM asking it to reconsider its budget so you don't have to read it yourself.
"You obviously put time and effort into your somewhat pathetic attempt to stand up to the man, and I applaud you for amusing me. But seriously, do it over and follow the rules this time, because you look like petulant infants."
Bassey Etim (betim@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 2:17am):
You are misinterpreting ASM's stance. The fact is that students believe the rent policy is unfair and should be changed. There is no room left for student orgs. on campus. Many administrators also believe the rent policy is unfair but they must abide by the rule to avoid illegal funding allocation. This is a fight that needs to go to the Board of Regents, and that is what ASM is doing.
If the Badger Herald was funded by seg fees as a student organization, you might understand the perspective of these student groups better.
We can't always just assume that the "policy" is right and follow the rules quietly without questioning. Sometimes a change is needed. ASM is doing the right thing by upholding student rights. Bassey -I hope you can change your mind about this issue.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 9:14am):
Again people fail to realize that many student organizations sue members of the SSFC for "Viewpoint Neutrality" violations when their budgets are cut. When a member of the SSFC gets sued they have no one to turn to for help. The University isn't going to use it legal department to help defend committee members nor can they use Seg Fee monies to hire an attorney. On the other hand if the SSFC passes a budget with rent and the Chancellor wants to deny the funding then he gets sued. When the Chancellor gets sued he has a whole team of lawyers to defend him.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 9:42am):
ASM's stance is only going to stop funding to all groups since the budget will not pass. Fine, you don't like the policy...take it to the Regents and get it on the agenda without making everyone else suffer by not getting a working budget. I've always said that ASM has the right idea, just the wrong practices. More flies with honey...
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 10:10am):
Don't you see, we students shouldn't decide how to spend our money, heck, we're just resume padding hacks.
- Germain E. Stemme
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 10:29am):
Mr. Etim:
Well-stated, well-argued, well-put. ASM has long been a self-aggrandizing disgrace and it sounds as though the current batch of seg-fee whores is no different.
Just one nitpick: While ASM may be good at flirting with special interests, it looks like it is failing when it comes to pandering to campus opinion leaders. You're the editorial page editor of the largest campus newspaper - at face value, few comport with the title of "opinion leader" more intimately than you.
And it is good to know that, insofar as that is true, at least one campus opinion leader has a whistle around his neck and plenty of breath to huff and puff into it.
-Victor Blake Marx
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 11:46am):
Listen, ASM may not be perfect, but they nailed this one right on the head. Students should have every right to use their allocable segregated fees to pay for leased space off-campus. There isn't a single policy that prohibits students from doing so, and besides--there isn't any space available ON CAMPUS! Not to mentiont he fact that it's THEIR money! Students should take this one right to the Regents.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 1:06pm):
um, 11:46, "students" aren't using "their" money for off campus rent, over-funded organizations are using OUR money to pay for it. Yes, we should take this to the Regents, to tell them to cut all the crap that takes our seg fees and let us pay less.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 2:06pm):
You can't just refuse to abide by the rules and the chancellor's wishes to abide by the rules.
If ASM wants to take a stance and change something, they, of all people, should know how to change things through the UW System.
It's called effective communication, it's called organization of core principles and expectations, and it's called collaborating with the Chancellor and the Board of Regents to revise a, perhaps, out-dated and unfair rent policy.
ASM, in my four years, has not proven that they are effective, responsible, or even change-makers. It's annoying. They have so much potential and so many resources. So many people fought so hard to have a powerful and knowledgeable student government and we are wasting it.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 3:38pm):
um, 1:06 -- I can understand your point of view, especially if you do not participate in one of the many diverse student organizations here on campus. Let me recommend a few to you. There's a UW Club for people who don't understand Seg Fees called the UW I'm A Whining Moron Association. There's also a group called the Haters Club that I think you'll absolutely-- hate. One last recommendation would be the UW Lets Write Into the Student Newspapers Without Doing Our Research club. All of these orgs would JUST LOVE to waste your money on you.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 4:34pm):
There is no policy that forbids students from using segregated fees to fund rent for off campus space.
This is an issue of the university trying to invent policy and re-write the rules, and I give props to ASM for recognizing the bigger picture here.
Anonymous (April 26, 2007 @ 1:01pm):
In order to get my ABET certified Civil and Enviromental undergraduate degree, I have to help fund a $250,000 yearly budget for a Roman Catholic Foundation?
I'm sorry, but that's corrupt.
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.
