The segregated fee is a hot item today. So hot that a certain group of students would like to change its distribution structure so groups petitioning for funds from the segregated fee would appear on registration ballots, and then students could “opt out” of funding groups that they quite frankly, do not feel need or deserve funding. While at face value this system may look appealing (which is what the drafters of this legislation want you to think), a closer look should leave you with unanswered questions (which the drafters don’t want you to think of):
First, why change what is not broken? Few cases get unanimous approval from the US Supreme Court, but our current fee system did. The current system of segregated-fee distribution is not only constitutional under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Board of Regents v. Southworth, but it also works. There are many layers of checks and balances that we have seen implemented throughout this last year before a group receives their funds. We have the strongest fee system in the country.
Second, many drafters of the opt-out referendum claim their system would put the power of seg-fee distribution into the hands of the students, but under the current system it already is.
We have put fee distribution into the hands of students (SSFC) who have been elected and appointed as our representatives. They have taken the time to research and hear the petitions of the student organizations requesting segregated fees, and the election for them will be in a week.
Third, I am worried that if students looked at the list of student organizations applying for seg-fee funding, they would only vote for ones that they felt suited their interest. Here is the real danger. For example, if the average student were to look at an organization such as the Campus Women’s Center and determine whether to fund it, I worry that they would only think what the name implies: a center for university women, and nothing more. But, the CWC was heavily involved with the Vote 2002 coalition, routinely sponsors Union lectures and sponsors sexual-assault awareness week and countless other programs that benefit all students.
We cannot judge these organizations by their titles alone. We need to be provided with an in-depth look at their services before making a decision — which is exactly what our current SSFC does. Should the opt-out referendum pass, students are at risk of losing some of their most prized services: GUTS, ALPS, SAFEwalk, Multicultural Student Coalition, Tenant Resource Center and more groups that do not just benefit the people that fall within their particular title.
The list of problems with the “opt-out” referendum grows as the election draws nearer: Is there an appeal process? Where can students obtain a copy of the referendum? Will students be required to attend information sessions before they vote to ensure they understand of the consequences of not funding an organization? Why haven’t the drafters held a public forum to educate the students? All these and many more have yet to be addressed. The current system works and is just. To opt-out would be neither.
Vote “no” to the “opt-out” referendum April 7-10.
John Blomberg ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in German and political science.
