This past Tuesday, Student Judiciary ratified its decision to hold a hearing in the case brought by seniors Joseph Laskowski and Josh Orton. This case was brought against several hard-working volunteers who gathered signatures for consideration of a new optional fee system.
It?s fitting that this decision was made on April 1; this case was the biggest April Fool?s Day joke on campus that day. If this hearing were televised on Court TV, it would be appropriate to have the laugh tracks ready to run during Laskowski and Orton?s presentation.
Although the charges in this case are completely baseless to the point of being comical, the implications of Student Judiciary?s decision in the matter could be quite serious. A decision to invalidate the signatures of more than 4,000 students would prevent one of the greatest reforms to ever come to our segregated fee system.
For this reform to occur, an amendment to the ASM constitution is required. Such an amendment requires a majority of students to approve a referendum question in the upcoming ASM spring elections. Most referendum questions go on the ballot as a result of approval by two-thirds of the ASM student council.
Unfortunately, since many students who serve on student council consider themselves accountable to the members of the groups that take segregated fee money rather than the students who have hundreds of dollars in fees taken away from them each year, this referendum question failed to receive the necessary two-thirds support from council members.
Fortunately, amendments to the ASM constitution can also be considered in a referendum if approximately 3,900 students sign a petition demanding it. In approximately three weeks, a small but dedicated group of volunteers gathered 4,085 signatures, about 200 more than required. These dedicated volunteers put in hours of work so that students could, for once, have a chance to save or spend their own money as they see fit.
For years, people like Laskowski, Orton and their friends have fed at the segregated fee trough without question or accountability. Still living in the past, they do not understand the fact that so many students are fed up with their shenanigans. They arrogantly conclude, without any supporting evidence, that only through forgery and deception could volunteers collect over 4,000 signatures from students affirming segregated fee reform.
Sadly enough, many students holding office in ASM will do anything to ensure that the current fee system remains intact, regardless of the rules. In this case, Student Judiciary accepted a case that does not even list names with most of the charges. Laskowski and Orton have even requested, without probable cause, to have the private e-mails of 30 students turned over for inspection so that they can go on their proverbial fishing expedition.
Laskowski and Orton have brought this case simply to harass the volunteers working for a cause they disagree with. Most of their charges are simply claims of rudeness and inconsideration — not actual violations of laws or regulations. They delight in the fact that the volunteers who worked for reform will now have to work to defend themselves and their individual integrity. It?s bad enough when individuals on this campus do this, and it?s even worse when the judicial branch of our student government allows it.
In addition to besmirching the volunteers that have gathered the signature, many opponents of fee reform have taken to lying about the proposal for an optional fee system. Many opponents claim that this new system will affect the bus pass, the Union and Recreational Sports. However, the language in the referendum quite clearly exempts all of these services, along with several others.
Other opponents claim that the current system is mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court and that an optional fee system violates the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Justice Kennedy, in the decision of the Supreme Court in UW Board of Regents v. Southworth wrote, ?It is all but inevitable that the fees will result in subsidies to speech which some students find objectionable and offensive to their personal beliefs. If the standard of germane speech is inapplicable, then it might be argued the remedy is to allow each student to list those causes which he or she will or will not support. If a university decided that its students? First Amendment interests were better protected by some type of optional or refund system, it would be free to do so.?
So now, we find ourselves in the exact situation that Justice Kennedy envisioned. As Charles Dickens would say, this is the best of times; it is the worst of times. Segregated fee abuse remains as much of a problem as ever, but at the same time, students, for once, have a historic opportunity to correct the problem.
Mark Baumgardner ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.