About three weeks after a student organization appealed for funding eligibility to interim Chancellor David Ward and voiced claims of institutional racism in student government, Ward handed the funding decision to the Associated Students of Madison Student Council.

In a letter addressed to Multicultural Student Coalition leadership, Ward said the Student Services Finance Committee did not commit a viewpoint neutrality violation when it originally denied MCSC’s funding. However, he said he is remanding the decision back to ASM Student Council because the ASM bylaws contain an incorrect definition of viewpoint neutrality.

Ward’s decision also directs ASM to restore its bylaws to include information explaining that a group can appeal to the chancellor, which MCSC had expressed concern over in its appeal. Ward also said ASM must revise the definition of “viewpoint neutral fashion” to reflect the appropriate legal definition.

This comes after MCSC appealed to Ward three weeks ago, stating SSFC failed to remain viewpoint neutral in its decision to deny General Student Services Funds eligibility. The letter said that when SSFC violated the group’s due process when it improperly implemented a waiver – as Student Judiciary decided – it constituted a viewpoint neutrality violation.

Ward said the current ASM bylaws could be interpreted to mean that any procedural noncompliance automatically constitutes a viewpoint neutrality violation, though this is not the correct definition.

Despite this, Ward said, a strict application of bylaw by SJ would have meant MCSC’s eligibility hearing should have been remanded to ASM Student Council rather than SSFC like what occurred.

SJ Chief Justice Kate Fifield said she takes issue with Ward’s decision because it is based on flawed assumptions and interpretation of bylaw and that her biggest issue is that his decision is an affront to student rights in allocating segregated fees.

“I don’t think that Ward has any right to jump in and tell ASM what to do,” Fifield said. “I think he’s trying to take the easy way out and have ASM make a difficult decision for him.”

She said Ward was supposed to make a decision regarding the viewpoint neutrality, which he did, but that his going ahead to interpret ASM bylaw and tell ASM what to do is an infringement on student rights and a power grab.

Fifield said SJ will be taking up a formal injunction against Student Council taking up MCSC’s eligibility. She said, if passed, the injunction should prevent Student Council from taking up the issue, although she is unsure that it will prevent them from trying.

SSFC Chair Sarah Neibart said Ward’s decision is in violation of shared governance, because he is illegally superseding a decision made by student government.

In a letter to Ward, she said it seems his interpretations of bylaw are overstepping his bounds and that it seems as though he is “worried with the outcome rather than the process.”

In an interview with The Badger Herald, Neibart said Student Council is an “incredibly politicized body” and that it would prove to be a non-viewpoint neutral forum for a decision on MCSC’s eligibility.

In his letter, Ward said MCSC has no authority to appeal his decision to the Board of Regents or to the UW System president. He also said ASM Student Council has five school days to decide on MCSC’s eligibility.

MCSC representatives did not return an email for comment.

Chancellor Ward’s letter to MCSC

Chancellor Ward’s decision regarding MCSC