During September, the Student Services Finance Committee (SSFC) of the Associated Students of Madison considered, among many other items, the eligibility of one organization and the budget of another. Both cases deserve comment and, once again, raise the question as to whether the idea of viewpoint neutrality really works in the present system.
Recall that SSFC is one of two financial committees for ASM — our student government on campus. ASM essentially has taxing authority over students since this governing body distributes segregated fee money — a significant chunk of students’ tuition bills. Among the purposes ASM allocates this money to, a portion goes to student organizations that receive thousands of dollars in segregated fee money. SSFC has the responsibility for determining which of these groups are eligible to receive that money and the amount that they receive.
One group that applied to have their eligibility to receive segregated fees renewed for the next two fiscal years was the Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). On their web page, CFACT states, “CFACT strongly believes most consumer and environmental problems can best be met and overcome — not through excessive government regulation and bureaucracy — but rather, by better unleashing the power of the free-enterprise system and the ingenuity of science and technology.” This free-market approach makes CFACT unique, and last year, one of my colleagues on this page used CFACT as his case in point for arguing that segregated fees pay for both sides of the political spectrum.
A few years ago, in the Board of Regents v. Southworth, the Supreme Court of the United States permitted universities to assess mandatory student fees, with viewpoint neutrality as the operating principle. In complying with the ruling, ASM and the administration have chosen a system requiring viewpoint neutrality not among organizations, but rather, among ASM representatives, including those on SSFC.
When voting, SSFC first denied CFACT funding, and then later in the evening, several representatives changed their vote, acting on a motion to reconsider. One SSFC representative changing her vote, Barbara Kiernoziak, stated in discussion, “I realized that I was voting for totally the wrong reason — like I don’t like what CFACT stands for, and so ultimately when I was torn, that’s what prevailed, but it wasn’t right.”
Kiernoziak went on to argue that gray areas exist with some of the criteria that SSFC uses to evaluate organization eligibility and felt that she would, “have to not grant eligibility to a lot of other organizations,” using the standards she initially used.
Kiernoziak deserves a great deal of respect and praise for remaining consistent in her standards of evaluating eligibility, a decision that she said in a separate interview that she “felt better” about once others changed their votes.
Status quo defenders may argue that this proves the process works — if, of course, they believe the honor system is sufficient in upholding the major operating principle of viewpoint neutrality. True, Student Judiciary, the dispute resolution branch of ASM, has another check on SSFC decisions, but as noted last week, recent actions of that body have raised questions about their impartiality.
Even if a fair and impartial Student Judiciary exists, problems inherent in the system prevent consistent enforcement of viewpoint neutrality. Representatives can use gray areas in the criteria to their advantage, when, in fact, ulterior motives existed.
More importantly, Student Judiciary will never investigate viewpoint neutrality violations without a filed complaint. Because of the time and costs required for filing and arguing a viewpoint neutrality complaint, student organizations with thousands of dollars on the line have a much greater financial incentive to pursue complaints than an individual student worried about extra pocket change.
Partly for this reason, most viewpoint neutrality violation allegations stem from decisions to deny or reduce funding to an organization, but this certainly does not prove the non-existence of viewpoint neutrality violations in favor of particular groups. In fact, actions of a few members at Monday’s SSFC meeting raise this issue.
On Monday, SSFC began its decision on the Multicultural Student Coalition’s (MCSC) budget. MCSC requested approximately $482,000, and several SSFC members acted responsibly, proposing adjustments.
SSFC representatives from various backgrounds have come to understand that eventually a point of diminishing returns exists with student organization budgets — more funding does not necessarily lead to better services for more students. Even in the April 15-28, 2004 issue of the Madison Observer, a MCSC-sponsored publication at the time, one student raised the general issue of large budgets going so far as to say, “Coming from the richest student organizations on campus, I’ve learned that money does more harm than good.”
Throughout discussion of these budget adjustments, a few members of SSFC consistently held side conversations and exchanged notes with MCSC members, essentially acting as their mouthpiece on SSFC. While these SSFC members may have sincerely made their decisions on numbers and a cost-benefit analysis, one could not help but wonder whether instead, these individuals supported MCSC and its agenda and viewpoints, fervently opposing budget adjustments.
The question becomes, will any student care enough to request a Student Judiciary investigation into this matter? What will become of this investigation should it happen?
Ultimately, the answers to these questions will either help affirm or negate the principle of viewpoint neutrality in ASM.
Mark Baumgardner ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.
