Members of a multicultural student organization appealed their eligibility decision to receive funding Tuesday, saying individual committee members violated viewpoint neutrality and calling into question whether biases played a role in the decision.

The Multicultural Student Coalition brought their suit against the Student Services Finance Committee before the Associated Students of Madison Student Judiciary Tuesday night, calling on justices to rule the committee must retry the eligibility hearing.

MCSC leadership contended committee members shifted the eligibility criteria applied to assessing the group’s budget. 

They also alleged the decision was made using a higher level of discretion than used with other groups, particularly in the case of weighing whether services contained in the budget are duplicated on campus.

The case comes on the heels of a Student Judiciary decision ruling in favor of MCSC on two of three counts, including the decision that the spending waiver for budgets over $250,000, along with its related policies, is invalid.

A key tenant of MCSC’s case centered on differing calculations among committee members on the hours spent on direct services, particularly in reference to Rep. Cale Plamann’s calculations, which were compiled into a spreadsheet and distributed to committee members.

Nneka Akubeze, a member of MCSC’s leadership team, said Plamann used his own viewpoint in appropriating educational value and determining whether programming falls under the definition a direct service.

“Members didn’t understand some of our direct services until post-decision,” she said. “It’s the fact that our process was different from every other organization’s. … There was a shift in criteria.”

SSFC Legal Counsel Samir Jaber contended members adhered to the same General Student Service Funds eligibility criteria used for every group that applies, according to the ASM bylaws.

He also argued MCSC brought no substantive evidence before the panel to prove the eligibility decision was made based on any standard other than the criteria.

“To delve deeply into a budget is not a matter of viewpoint neutrality, it’s whether there was a bias that was demonstrated or a process not followed – none of that was demonstrated,” Jaber said. “These are not phantom criteria. … [They] are outlined very clearly.”

The petitioners also accused SSFC members of treating the multicultural group differently than other organizations during their eligibility hearing, saying questions of substantive equivalency in services provided came up several times with other groups that were later granted eligibility.  

Sex Out Loud’s sexual education programs and Greater University Tutoring Service were cited as examples.

MCSC leader Rebecca Pons also charged individual members with “a pattern of breaking the code of conduct” during meetings, saying Internet usage during presentation and inattentiveness indicated personal biases against the group and violations of viewpoint neutrality in the final decision.

SSFC Chair Sarah Neibart defended the committee’s adherence to its standardized procedure, saying it is the members’ job to delineate what is and is not a direct service in an interview with The Badger Herald.

She also said the criteria that 50 plus one percent of programming must directly serve students is used in determining eligibility for all groups, but committee members may have different interpretations of what they define as a direct service.

The decision on the matter will likely be released in 10 regular class days, Chief Justice Kathryn Fifield said.