OPINION & EDITORIAL
Let me keep my own cash, SSFC
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sam Clegg:
- What's traditional about prejudice? (January 21, 2008)
- Don't bother filling diversity positions (December 5, 2007)
- AIDS class reveals societal problems (November 7, 2007)
- Lecturer's views no match for knee-jerk antagonists (October 24, 2007)
- Dr. Paul: Report to America, stat (October 10, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Once bitten... (December 14, 2005)
- The paradox of viewpoint-neutrality (November 6, 2001)
- MEChA ruling has implications for campus (October 2, 2002)
- Next stop on the gravy train (April 24, 2007)
- Circuit court improperly affirms viewpoint-neutrality (October 2, 2002)
by Sam Clegg
Thursday, January 24, 2008
This past Thursday, U.S. District Judge John Shabaz delivered a decision that mandates a return to the viewpoint neutrality that is the Student Services Finances Committee’s modus operandi. He did so by ruling that the University of Wisconsin must reimburse the Roman Catholic Foundation of UW for expenses that should have been covered by SSFC in the first place. What does this decision mean? Is it a victory for freedom of speech? A massive slap in the face for the Establishment Clause?
Well, neither actually. It’s a constitutional necessity but an unfortunate defeat in the battle against lower tuition.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the creation of a state religion. However, SSFC funds any organization, religious or otherwise, worthy of segregated fees. So the Jewish Cultural Collective and the Campus Women’s Center, for example, should also be covered in its budget. What is troubling is the fact that this funding for student groups has been allowed to expand so dramatically.
The idea that students should fund student groups by mandate, and not voluntarily, assumes as its premise, that SSFC has a better idea of what to do with our money than we do. It also means that not only is the SSFC going to protect everyone’s right to free speech — a worthy cause — it is also going to subsidize it. While the idea of taking a relatively minor contribution from every student in order to fund a wide variety of organizations is not detestable in and of itself, the implications for students can be dangerous if caution is not used.
How can SSFC objectively determine what is essential to an organization’s mission? RCF-UW, for example, won $30,000 in the decision for expenses incurred from running evangelical camps and printing Lenten booklets, among other things. The final SSFC budget for the Roman Catholic Foundation amounted to $288,334 for this year alone.
Trust me on this. I’m Catholic. Every time that collection basket gets passed around, everything is silent from Washington all the way up to Franklin, except for the rustle of dollar bills. It is not like we need the money.
However, RCF-UW is not the only recipient of extravagant funding. Other contestants for shopper of the year included the MultiCultural Student Coalition at $379,090, the Asian and Pacific American Council at $173,801 and the Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow at $196,556.
If all these other groups are going to get SSFC money, then RCF-UW should get it too. And if the pie isn’t big enough for everybody, why, we should just expand the pie!
At this juncture, funding grants that go above and beyond an organization’s actual requirements are almost whimsical, because they cost so little. But the General Student Services Fund, which pays for student groups, has seen its budget expand by 226 percent since the 2001-02 academic year.
The budget is metastasizing at so fast a rate that the concerns of cash-strapped students may start to be outweighed by the dangerously vague concept of an “extracurricular educational experience.”
If rising tuition rates are truly a problem — and I’m not the only person convinced that they are — we must become cognizant of the fact that there is no single culprit who is responsible. It starts with a series of ideas and programs, noble in their aims and modest at first. They are for the good of everyone, the reasoning runs, so why shouldn’t everyone pay the price? With the bus passes and the Wisconsin Union, as well as the student groups, that may be true. But awareness of our shared responsibility in the climate of a university is far from a blank check.
We shouldn’t arbitrarily cease funding student groups. Although any fiscally responsible person would oppose most kinds of extracurricular fees leveled on the students on principle, there is a clear educational benefit to be had from removing some of the financial obstacles to any valid organization that wants to get its message across. Nonetheless, if there was ever an opportunity to exercise restraint, the time is now. The GSSF budget must not expand by another 226 percent.
The cry will inevitably be raised that any column expressing the view that SSFC should become more responsible in its spending decisions across the board is a heartless Republican crossbow aimed at the intellectual heart of this university.
Far from it. This is an appeal to caution and reason.
If the GSSF budget has grown this much in the past, there is little reason to believe it will cease to do so in the future. What is needed now is a crystal-clear reminder that no matter how desirable it is to grab, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Sam Clegg (sclegg@wisc.edu)
is a freshman majoring in creative
writing.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 9:07am):
We should make student organizations fund themselves. As a graduate student, I'm tired of watching part of my hard-earned salary as a TA going toward student organizations that spend our money like drunken sailors. If an organization really wants to do something, they can find a way to do it.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 9:23am):
"Let me keep my own cash"
There are many that feel the same way about the IRS, SIT, FICA, sales tax, etc.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 9:59am):
Umm, you're kinda missing a large Supreme Court case... Southworth mean anything to you? You might want to read a bit of the case before advancing your ridiculous point - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1189.ZS.html
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 10:14am):
Lolbertarian rhetoric from a creative writing major? Dude, the Truly Free Market will not stomach such a useless field! Do something useful, like economics or engineering, where the class will be full of sociopaths like yourself.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 10:17am):
GSSF groups barely make up anything in terms of seg fees. The biggest contribution to seg fees are from the non-allocable group which includes: the Unions, Rec centers, UHS, etc. Those take about 80-90% of your seg fees. In other words, if GSSF funding increases by 200% from today till next year ... seg fees will increase from the hypothetical amount of $100 to $110. Do some research on this, it's available all over the web. Non-allocable fees, the 80-90% that make up seg fees are decided by the university budget planners. So point the finger there if you are going to point it at 10% of the pie.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 12:29pm):
Grad student-- your department (and thus our tuition dollars) probably spends more on red pens so you can downgrade our papers than any of us contributes to allocable seg fees. Stop taking more of our money so you can give us bad grades.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 12:30pm):
"organizations that spend our money like drunken sailors"
Pikers compared to federal, state and local governments.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 2:25pm):
10:17 is correct. The GSSF is a very small sliver of the total segregated fee levy, about 8%. Also, as to the claim that the GSSF has increased 226%. That may have been true two years ago. The GSSF has been reduced 48% in the past two years, that is a decrease of over $1.6 million. The GSSF budgets for next year will be less than the amount charged students in 2002-03. Your article is misinformed and statistics are wrong.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 3:49pm):
I think the flaw in thinking like yours, Sam, is that you seem to think that if we were to rid ourselves of GSSF funds, and the system that students use to govern it, we wouldn't have to pay these fees. That's wrong. The university powers that be want to fund organizatins and institutions like MCSC, WSUM, and GUTS, and would do so with or without SSFC or the rest of ASM. However, we are in a unique position to actually have control over how that money is spent. In short, this money will be spent on such organizations regardless of whether or not the system you argue against is in place or not. Facing such a reality, I'm thankful that students have a say in how the money is spent. It takes columns like yours, however, to keep the pressure on those controlling the allocable portion to exercise restraint and good judgement.
I'd also say that your best bet in lowering seg fees is in directing your editorial derision at the non-allocable portion, and especially in joining your fellow Herald Writer as a Representative on SSFC.
Regards,
Gerald Cox
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 5:16pm):
To 9:59 -
Umm, you might want to read Southworth, too, before leveling your critique. It says the UW fee system is ONE constitutionally permissible arrangement. It is not the exclusive one, however.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 5:23pm):
"Non-allocable fees, the 80-90% that make up seg fees are decided by the university budget planners. So point the finger there if you are going to point it at 10% of the pie."
They make the budgets, but SSFC can suggest cuts to the Chancellor before final approval in the form of votes on those budgets. And if someone wants to argue against compulsory funding for Rec Sports, UHS, the Unions, and Childcare (CCTAP) because he doesn't use those services, then let him.
Further, pointing to the small percentage allocable fees comprise of the total seg. fee bill is a cop out. The groups getting several hundred thousand dollars in funding should be doing their own fundraising or charging membership fees that don't compel students who don't want their less-than-necessary and non-speech-related "services".
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 5:31pm):
"The GSSF has been reduced 48% in the past two years, that is a decrease of over $1.6 million. The GSSF budgets for next year will be less than the amount charged students in 2002-03"
That's great, but he used the 2001-2002 school year as his starting point, and if the numbers increased drastically enough from 02 before the 2006-2007 school, even a significant reduction in the subsequent two years might be negated as far as the long-term comparison.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 6:27pm):
"It says the UW fee system is ONE constitutionally permissible arrangement. It is not the exclusive one, however."
It also says that if you don't want to pay seg fees you're free to withdraw from the University and either go elsewhere (where seg fees are similar) or join the workforce (where you're paid, instead of paying).
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 9:56am):
A lovely article.
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.
