It wasn’t that long ago that you could expect conservatives on campus to cringe at the mention of segregated fees. Naturally, how could students whose principles are fiscal responsibility and limited government not reject ASM’s collectivist system for funding activities?
Southworth’s Supreme Court defeat in March 2000 threw a wrench into the plans of students who hoped to prevent their dollars from subsidizing groups without their approval. Some conservatives kept challenging the system. Others, however, threw their hands in the air to say, “If you can’t beat ’em, you might as well join ’em.”
These contrarians became Madison’s chapter of the Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow — a conservative group most easily described as (and aimed to be) WisPIRG’s antithesis on environmental and consumer issues.
Today, the Student Services Finance Committee will decide the group’s 2003-04 budget. Despite claiming to be WisPIRG’s opposite, CFACT’s application strikes a familiar chord:
WisPIRG: “A 5 percent budget cut would hurt all programs that WisPIRG runs. If this cut were implemented it would mean that all individual program budgets within the organization would be cut.”
CFACT: “A 5 percent budget cut would hurt all programs that CFACT runs. If this cut were implemented it would mean that all individual program budgets within the organization would be cut.”
WisPIRG: One line item — Membership fees of $80,000
CFACT: One line item — Membership fees of $80,000
Much of CFACT’s budget is for “one-time” expenses like computers and office equipment. That one has been heard before from the Multicultural Student Center and others, and somehow these expenses never seem to disappear.
Our student government is not as viewpoint-neutral as it and the university claim it is — as the contentiousness and finger pointing at this fall’s sessions have shown thus far. But does it make sense for students who want to be fiscally responsible to think we need a right-wing group for every left-wing group on campus, just to stick it to the liberals? This may lead to a different process of “sifting and winnowing” from any Bascom Hill has ever seen, but it would also lead to a doubling of our fees from an already-atrocious $70 to an obnoxious $140 in a short period.
The tactic won’t fix our student government. It does raise questions about the ridiculous funding scheme, but most students already realize our student government is a sham. They don’t need to pay double the fees to prove it.
There is only one constructive outcome for the CFACT budget proposal, and that is for SSFC to completely reject it. Perhaps then students can resurrect the court fight against the university’s big-business seg-fee industry.
CFACT’s says it wants to provide an alternative to WisPIRG’s warnings of global catastrophes and politics aimed at averting earth-ending behavior. But isn’t the apocalypse truly upon us when conservatives are on their hands and knees begging our student government for students’ cash? It’s time to hoard supplies and build that fallout shelter.
