Last week’s Southworth ruling by the 7th Circuit Court was lauded as a victory by both camps. ASM claims its proof that its system works, and funds can be allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. Southworth claims it just leaves the door open for more students to file lawsuits against the system.

The fact is that nobody has won a thing, as viewpoint neutrality is no longer something both sides strive for. Instead, it is an argument, a tool, for people of differing viewpoints to use on ASM and SSFC to get their way.

Barely a month into the school year and already we are grappling with numerous questions regarding the decisions of SSFC members. The denials of student groups’ eligibility for funds has left both sides crying foul and trying desperately to get things to go their way.

This year the conservatives are the majority. Promising fiscal responsibility, members denied groups, such as MEChA, DES and the UW Infoshop, eligibility on the basis they duplicated student services, they did not provide a welcoming environment for all students and they violated ASM bylaws.

Immediately, the denied groups and their supporters pulled the viewpoint neutrality card and claimed the SSFC members who voted to deny them were racist and thus made their decision in a non-viewpoint-neutral manner.

Now groups see the viewpoint-neutral card, not the race card, as the winning hand. All those denied appealed, and one, MEChA, has already won its case with Student Judiciary. One SSFC member was kicked out, as it was a malicious viewpoint violation, and three others have been warned.

So, MEChA’s ruling should have been a victory for the system, right? After all, student judiciary found that the members did base part of their decision on the groups’ viewpoint, and the groups are getting a second chance to be heard on the other non-“viewpoint” allegations against them.

But, isn’t every decision made by SSFC based upon a viewpoint? Members have to decide if a group is asking too much, if a group is doing what it promised to do and if a group is playing by the rules. All of that is based upon what each member thinks.

And a look at the liberals’ response to the conservative members’ vote shows that they don’t care about protecting a group’s right to be funded despite viewpoint — they care that their group is protected from those conservative viewpoints they see as being so threatening. These people do not even consider the idea that there are real non-viewpoint reasons to deny eligibility — it is all viewpoint. Feedback in this paper last week even celebrated the conservative members’ punishments and that right wing ideologies were being squashed. Isn’t viewpoint neutrality supposed to help protect these ideas too?

The conservatives aren’t much better either. When their ideas were challenged, as they should expect them to be, they failed to show up at the SSFC and ASM meetings last week, making both groups fail to make quorum. The no-show members said they were taking or studying for exams, which is why they did not go to the meeting. But that does not change the fact that nothing got done and the schedule has been pushed back even farther.

While last Tuesday’s ruling should have been an affirmation that the system works, the real world is much different. The past month has proven the process is in shambles. Instead of working to make sure every viewpoint has an equal chance to get funding, both sides have instead taken to using viewpoint neutrality to get their way. If one group does not like a group’s funding and disagrees with it, they will immediately be accused of not being viewpoint neutral. In other words, it has become a system where if people disagree with how much money a group is getting, it means they don’t like the group’s message, and, thus, the decisions aren’t being made in a viewpoint-neutral manner. Then the accused will turn around and claim the people against them aren’t open to their viewpoint. It’s a vicious circle that never ends.

All groups should have an equal chance to funding despite the viewpoint they want to advocate. And everyone is going to have opinions on how much money each group should get. Just because someone doesn’t think a group needs thousands of dollars worth of computers does not mean they are against the group’s message — it means they are trying to be fiscally responsible and ask questions.

The truth is, you can’t keep people’s opinions out of debates. People are going to have views about how much money each group needs, whether a group has broken the rules and whether a group is a necessary student service. The problem with the current rules is that they are all subjective, and the fact that whether or not a person is acting in a viewpoint-neutral manner all rests on what a small group of people think. Viewpoint neutrality has no longer become a common, greater goal. Instead, it has become a thing for both sides to cry when their viewpoint loses out. Truth is, the liberals can’t stand it that they are no longer the majority, and feedback last week proves that point. They are celebrating that they were successful in pulling the viewpoint-neutral card to get their way. They are practicing the classic “free speech for me but not for thee” method.

Until ASM institutes some objective standards for SSFC and Student Council to determine which groups should receive funding and how much, viewpoint neutrality will never be reached. Instead, it will continue to be used as a battle cry for both sides when they do not get their way. Both will claim all decisions were based upon a certain viewpoint and the circle of blame will never end. And, in the end, no one will win, and we will end up just funding all groups, whatever they ask for, and seg fees will go even higher.
The problem is that it is virtually impossible to set up truly objective standards under the current system. The only way to solve this problem is to institute an opt-out system for segregated fees where everything is based on math, and viewpoint plays no role, but that’s another argument for another time.
Tuesday’s circuit-court ruling and the shenanigans in ASM and SSFC have made viewpoint neutrality a card to use in petty debates when people are sore they did not win. In the end, nothing will end up getting done, and more people will end up being silenced rather than heard.

Katie Harbath ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.