The viewpoint-neutrality violations and petty arguments that have swamped our student government this year could all disappear with a new paradigm for segregated-fees collection. Our plan for a system in which students may opt out of segregated-fees collection is elegantly simple. The proposal rejects rules and red tape, allowing a truly democratic contribution system to determine an organization’s funding levels.
Just as it is now, SSFC will determine whether an applying organization is eligible to receive funds using whatever “viewpoint-neutral” criteria they wish. Services and groups will then present budgets, and SSFC can still amend and adjust their requests. The key is that these approved budget requests are not “what the group will get,” rather they are “what the group will ask for.”
We propose the university mail a simple form over the summer listing each organization and the final amount per student they have requested for the upcoming year (Group A–$3; Group B–$1.50, etc.). If students are not interested in supporting a particular group, they simply check it off.
These forms must be returned prior to the mailing of fall tuition bills so students who opted out receive their tuition discount. The discount carries over to the spring semester, since student-funded groups make year-long budgets.
Each group will find out at the start of the academic year how much money it has to work with by multiplying the amount it asked for by the number of students who did not opt out of the organization.
Public events held by organizations would still be open to all students and community members, the same way that public events are often attended by free-riding non-students in the current system.
However, students who decide to opt out of a particular organization may not be a member of that organization, may not attend private events and may not obtain employment within that organization.
Our opt-out plan would apply to all organizations except those that receive non-allocable funds such as recreational sports, the Union and University Health Services. These services are not controlled by politically charged students, and their validity has never been formally challenged by even the most conservative people on campus.
Noticeably present on the list of organizations you may opt out of is ASM. Those students who choose to opt out of our prestigious student government would not be able to vote in ASM elections, and ASM could no longer claim they speak for “all students” if some opt out. This gives all those apathetic students who just don’t care about ASM an option they can finally be happy about: some extra cash for a 12-pack.
What can we expect from such a proposal? This system may initially result in less funding for some groups. But don’t buy the argument that unpopular points of view will some how be adversely affected by a voluntary-fee system.
Since students choose which groups to support, there is a built-in incentive for groups to become more visible and more effective. The groups that do receive fewer funds can always look for new ways to save money or put some work into outside fundraising and user fees. Ultimately, the sifting and winnowing of student organizations will be stronger once they have had a dose of reality and some real accountability from the students paying seg-fee bills.
Student government, administrators and organizations will also benefit from an opt-out system by not having to devote so much time and effort to constant lawsuits claiming discrimination. The easiest way to make complainers go away is to fix their grievances.
Courts have ordered the university to re-examine its distribution practices for travel grants and the criteria it uses to determine eligibility. The Supreme Court’s original ruling did not say the university could not institute an opt-out system; it merely said the current system was not unconstitutional.
ASM members have been gleefully boasting ever since the decision that they have been vindicated and free speech has been saved. They are entitled to some celebration, but the courts never said the university couldn’t improve the system we have. Now it’s time to take a close look at how fees are collected and distributed.
We hope ASM and the university can use this opportunity and go beyond the order of the court to create a truly just and fair distribution process, free of the political posturing plaguing the status quo.
