Last week, Student Judiciary convicted three Student Services Finance Committee members of “non-malicious viewpoint neutrality violations.” These three representatives are, as it stands, non-malicious viewpoint neutrality violators.

I will pause to allow my dear readers a collective gasp.

As shocking as it may be, the NMVNV accusation just doesn’t fit in with the more traditional ASM rhetoric that favors labels based on vague abstractions — “racist” and “ignorant” come to mind.

In fact, it’s downright bland, a second-rate crime that wouldn’t even merit mention on a second-rate legal drama: “Your Honor, the defendant is charged with selling motorcycles on a Sunday, misusing a milk crate and non-maliciously violating viewpoint neutrality.”

Yet the segregated-fees drama has been anything but second-rate: It’s featured the Board of Regents, the Wall Street Journal, and even a Supreme Court cameo. The result has been that those of us who support seg fees have taken to saying “viewpoint neutrality” at every possible opportunity.

“How’re you feeling today?”

“Damn viewpoint-neutral, thanks.”

More importantly, the result has also been a vindication of a funding system that institutionalizes student power. For smaller student groups, this means office space and some basic tools of operation.

For larger GSSF programs, this means the resources to materially improve and challenge the campus. And, for students as a whole, this means a more vibrant university with student institutions that enjoy some insulation from the pressures of finance and the perils of turnover.

But the survival of this system is predicated on a continuing belief of the courts that these funds are distributed in a “viewpoint-neutral” fashion, and it is the debate on this point that is the most troubling.

According to ASM bylaws, “a decision is made in a viewpoint neutral fashion where the decision is made: (1) in accordance with any procedural requirements for making the decision; and (2) without considering the viewpoint being expressed by the recipient of the funds.”

Sound simple? Students elect and appoint other motivated and politically involved students who sit through endlessly grueling meetings, allocate millions of dollars and never consider viewpoint. The fact that a certain group advocates for safety, veterans, diversity or student leadership has no impact on the strength of its funding request. A belief in any of those amounts to point-of-view, and the good SSFC rep never considers point-of-view.

Of course not. The value of a group is inextricably tied to its viewpoint and cannot be determined simply by looking at the frequency of meetings or estimates of the number of UW students served. In practice, an SSFC rep must compare the services of an organization with the needs of his or her constituents and determine whether there is congruence sufficient to merit what is often a huge sum of money.

If it were as committed to viewpoint neutrality as it claims to be, SSFC could vote on funding and eligibility requests without ever knowing the recipient or the particular viewpoint espoused. The Multicultural Student Coalition, the Homogeneity Council and the Committee to Make Sure Every Last UW Student Has At Least Three Mopeds would be indistinguishable on paper. Each could propose the same administrative structure, target the same audience, and require the same level of funding.

It is the ability to assess the true value of a service that allows for a rational allocation of seg fees — and requires a consideration of viewpoint. Because the Southworth-inspired interpretation of the ASM Constitution demands viewpoint neutrality, however, SSFC reps have resorted to valiant exercises in creative thinking to justify their necessarily viewpoint-laden decisions. At least they make the effort.

It would seem that our three non-malicious viewpoint neutrality violators did just that. They played within the system, but they talked too much, and Student Judiciary just didn’t like it. A fourth rep had abandoned all pretenses of viewpoint neutrality and was booted from SSFC for his malicious violation. He was, it seems, too honest.

By silencing those who dissent the loudest, Student Judiciary’s ruling will only contribute to a greater reluctance on the part of SSFC reps to explain themselves. This, in turn, will result in further obfuscation of the funding process and less accountability to the student body.

Viewpoint neutrality may be one of the political realities under which our segregated-fee system must now operate, but it is a risky ideal and one to which our student government should be more reluctant to claim rabid adherence. After all, the more student government seeks to target individual viewpoint-neutrality violators, the more likely it is that every representative will eventually be condemned for the same crime. And in that case, the losers will be the system — and the student body it serves.

–Bryant Walker Smith (bsmith@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in civil engineering.