The Badger Herald’s Opinion section published an article Sept. 29 by Mark Baumgardner, titled, “Neutrality questionable in MCSC debate.” Baumgardner’s piece aimed at examining viewpoint neutrality and cited SSFC’s decision to rule CFACT eligible as an example of the committee’s use of viewpoint neutrality. He also used his observations during the budget deliberations for the Multicultural Student Coalition as an example of viewpoint neutrality violations. Baumgardner’s observations, while valid (as everyone is entitled to his own opinions) by default conferred a negative judgment onto MCSC through the lack of information he provided. The following article is not intended to address viewpoint neutrality and its applications but rather seeks to address his negative insinuation of MCSC.
The article Baumgardner wrote was strategically vague when it came to MCSC. It mentioned things such as MCSC’s request for $482,000, topped off with a comment that MCSC is the richest organization on campus, without stating that this amount is a reduction of 28 percent from what MCSC requested last year.
Presenting these additional numbers, on the other hand, would have provided readers at least the option of thinking that MCSC is attempting instead to be more fiscally responsible. In fact, according to MCSC staff, their current budget request is an attempt to comply with SSFC requests for student organizations to turn in a lean budget — a budget that reflects what the organization needs in order to function. Just a little FYI for those who are not familiar with the SSFC budget process: student organizations who apply for funding often hand in an inflated budget, anticipating the cuts that SSFC will eventually make.
By remaining vague, Baumgardner leaves his readers assuming that MCSC’s budget request is not only large but also excessive. He fails to provide the needed information readers would require in order to make a fair assessment as to why MCSC necessitates such a large budget in order to operate on a level that provides quality services for all students. In his article, Baumgardner forgot to mention how large MCSC really is, the vast amount of programming the organization puts on, and the many student organizations this organization supports in all aspects of event programming through its coalition building. In all fairness, what Baumgardner should have revealed is that MCSC is one of the largest student organizations on campus, operating with a staff of 30 students, putting on approximately 50 programs (this number includes programs MCSC collaborated on) during the ’03-’04 fiscal year and supporting between 45–60 student organizations that operate on this campus. Additionally, MCSC had a cumulative total of approximately 50,000 people in attendance for all its programs and services.
Additionally, statements such as “SSFC representatives from various backgrounds have come to understand that … more funding does not necessarily lead to better services for more students” not only does MCSC (and organizations like it) injustice but are disrespectful to the efforts these students have put into creating a more positive campus climate, which is to the benefit of all.
Finally, this author would like to point out the irony of Baumgardner writing a piece on THP viewpoint neutrality when he himself was dismissed from SSFC for violating viewpoint neutrality during the MEChA budget deliberations during ASM’s ninth session.
Irene Mak ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in business.
