Tonight SSFC will make its most important decision of the year.
The most obvious reason is the financial implications. The Multicultural Student Coalition is asking for a budgetary increase of 756 percent to $977,418. Diversity Education Specialists, a group so closely affiliated with MCSC that the budgets should be viewed as one, is asking for $559,100 – an increase in student funding of 596 percent.
But the significance of these budgets is measured in terms far more important than dollars and cents.
The dire need for discussion about the state of diversity and climate on this campus is clear. Race relations are seemingly deteriorating, and action on campus diversity is stagnant at best.
Somebody needs to reach out and start a dialogue about the past, the present and, most importantly, the future of diversity at UW-Madison.
The MCSC has shown the vision needed to be a leader facilitating that discussion.
Yes, in the past, the MCSC has been reactionary, only visible to much of the student body when the group feels a specific wrong has been carried out against students of color. The result has been a tension far more detrimental than beneficial to the cause of campus climate.
But if the MCSC undergoes the transformation that it proposes, all this will change.
Last week, the MCSC unveiled its organizational vision – a network of 10 service divisions that will work to foster cross-cultural education, improve campus climate and provide support services for all students.
The new MCSC would be a proactive group that seeks out students in its mission to catalyze diversity by creating an ongoing dialogue. It would work with other campus organizations and media to address the institutions at this school that have hindered the cultivation of diversity. Education, not reaction, would be the key to addressing situations that make all students uncomfortable.
But a strong vision complemented by an equally strong will is not a guarantee of success. The MCSC is looking to provide services that have never been provided before and to do it by means of an organizational structure that will be new to everyone. No organization is capable of undertaking such an immense task and growth at the same time and being completely successful. There are certain to be some stumbles along the way.
Moreover, the sheer amount of student money involved calls for a particularly thorough examination of the expenditures involved. What is the most efficient way of achieving the MCSC’s vision? This is an especially important question because many students oppose this budget simply because of the dollar amount.
To mitigate the chances of a major failure by the MCSC en route to fulfilling its mission, the group must improve its communications with students and with the media. No student on the UW campus should be ignorant of the MCSC’s mission, goals and services.
Further, the MCSC must fulfill its vow to reach out not only to students of color, but also to white students. Without the congress of all students on this campus, diversity will remain a lofty and unreachable objective.
The budget
Regardless of the merits of the MCSC’s services, their budget is filled with excess. As SSFC considers the MCSC budget request tonight, we believe that if they approach the budget with viewpoint-neutral perspective (as mandated by federal courts, UW policy and ASM bylaws), they can trim hundreds of thousands of dollars from the budget without sacrificing services or results.
The MCSC proposes quadrupling its current staff to 44 students. At the same time, it is requesting an across-the-board 25 percent pay raise from $8 to $10 an hour. The new, better paid staff will be organized into 10 departments ranging from finance to media to human resources and will be located in brand-new off-campus office space.
There is a troubling lack of hierarchy or accountability in the proposed organizational structure; the workload and responsibility is too poorly delegated within teams. Before MCSC makes such a large investment in its staff, we urge the group to seek outside advice from management and human resource experts.
Regardless, SSFC should trim MCSC’s staff requests. Many of the proposed MCSC jobs are either unneeded or duplicated elsewhere in the organization (For instance: the proposed human resources mediator would “act as a mediator to help prevent and solve internal conflicts within MCSC”). Moreover, MCSC should undergo its reorganization and determine what positions are truly essential before making too many needless hires.
For now, some of the proposed departments clearly need fewer people than others – MCSC could afford staff reductions to the information, human resources, diversity education, housing and informational technologies departments. Also, MCSC could improve accountability (and save money) by having only one chair.
In addition to limiting the increases in staff positions, SSFC should continue to pay MCSC staff $8 an hour (a figure similar to the pay of other student organizations). SSFC can save students $112,640 by rejecting the unneeded pay hike.
These reasonable reductions would result in big savings for students: As submitted, MCSC’s staff budget is more than $200,000 too large. These savings are especially important because once in the budget, these positions will be funded for years to come.
MCSC is also asking for record investments in office space and equipment. Again, their budget can be drastically trimmed without compromising services. SSFC should take a close look at its request for office equipment. In addition to generally inflated prices ($850 file cabinets?), some of the requested items are too expensive to justify (For example: $200 dry-erase board, $5,000 student-leadership plaque, $7,000 camcorder). And like most student groups, MCSC has overestimated both the cost of new computers as well the need for laptops.
SSFC also should ask MCSC to find more reasonable office space. Their requested site at 201 W. Gorham is downtown Madison’s newest office building. We worry that it is too far from campus, not visible enough (in the building’s basement) and too expensive in the long term. Cheaper office space is available nearer campus: MCSC should find a more fiscally responsible home.
Finally, in the spirit of frugality, we hope SSFC trims MCSC’s travel budget: The requested $500 per person per conference request strikes us as rather luxurious.
It is important SSFC not be intimidated by the size of MCSC’s request. UW students are facing annual tuition hikes in the foreseeable future, even without increases in segregated fees. It is important that SSFC not compound students’ problems by granting excessive or wasteful grants to groups, no matter how well meaning the group is. We tip our hat to the MCSC’s dedicated staff that worked tirelessly to craft the proposed budget. We submit our budget recommendations as a compliment – not a criticism – of their work.
We do wish SSFC had weighed the relative importance of budget requests prior to this point. Even if SSFC cuts the hundreds of thousands of dollars we have suggested, it seems inevitable that tuition fees will again rise. That said, diversity should be a priority, and because of that we hope SSFC will sensibly invest in this valuable student service.
DES budget
SSFC will also be considering the budget of DES. Until two years ago, DES was a part of the MCSC there was no separate budget. But just because the budgets were split for technical reasons does not mean they should be considered separately. After all, both groups have the same goals, propose the same restructuring, will share the same office, and had the same people presenting to SSFC. And when these two budgets are placed side-by-side, the redundancy is obvious.
DES is proposing an increase of two professional positions paid at $32,000 a year to seven positions ranging in pay from $35,000 to $55,000. But when compared to MCSC’s budget, it is unclear what additional benefit is to be derived by the positions. We would prefer MCSC’s ambitious plan be accomplished by students (as laid out in MCSC’s budget), not professionals paid with student dollars. We are certainly sympathetic to the suggestion these positions be funded by the administration, and will join MCSC in campaigning for such a change.
The rest of DES’s budget is either redundant with MCSC’s or inflated with the expectation of the aforementioned staff increase. We see room for significant cuts in nearly every category, especially child-care, computers, and programming/miscellaneous/rent (they’re all the same category).
We see the importance of academic staff devoted to diversity. But the administration should bear the burden for these additional costs. We hope to join the MCSC in campaigning for the funds necessary.
