As part of the Badger Herald’s 40th anniversary celebration, every Wednesday we are republishing classic Editorial Board statements and columns from alumni staff writers. After the Daily Cardinal supported the actions of the Sterling Hall bombers in an editorial, a rift between the editors, faculty board members and the student government — The Wisconsin Student Association — resulted in two important campus-wide votes in 1976: one which would give control of the Cardinal Board of Directors to WSA members seeking to shift the “radical” focus and another which would take away veto power from the board’s faculty. While control by the WSA-run “Standard Press Party” would be short lived, the passage of the faculty veto referendum would allow The Badger Herald, 10 years later, to initiate a takeover attempt of the Cardinal. Below is the opinion of the spring 1976 Badger Herald Editorial Board:
Next Tuesday, two items on the WSA ballot relate to the “other” student newspaper: election of student members to the Cardinal Board of Directors and a referendum restructuring that board.
The Badger Herald will endorse neither the “official” slate of candidates nor the opposite slate. It would be highly presumptuous of us to endorse candidates who will control the financial matters of our competition. Furthermore, neither slate is conservative. The opposition candidates are merely less radical than the Cardinal-endorsed “Press Brigade.” As a conservative newspaper, we will refrain from choosing sides.
We will, however, state our opposition to the referendum, which, if passed, would strip the faculty members of their veto power. The Daily Cardinal is currently receiving a $7,000 rental subsidy from the university. If they wish to continue to milk the university of taxpayers’ money, they must expect the university to have a veto power over how that money is spent.
Faculty members of the Cardinal Board do not have a voice over the Cardinal editorial policy. They do not vote for staff members. Their only duty is to monitor financial actions and to veto all those which might damage the Cardinal’s financial position.
The issue that launched this referendum is a $5,000 contribution to the David Fine Freedom Committee that the faculty vetoed. The Herald is not opposed to this contribution from the Cardinal if it were their money, there would be no objection to its allocation from us. Since that money is coming from the university in the form of free rent, however, that contribution is an unreasonable use of taxpayers’ money. The university has every right to have veto power over the expenditure of funds if it is supplying a subsidy to the Cardinal.
Like Lockheed and the Penn-Central Railroad, the Cardinal must learn governmental funds do not come without strings attached. That is why the Herald refused a similar subsidy. Were the Cardinal to give up the subsidy this paper would strongly support their right to give their money to whomever they please. Since they are not about to do this, we urge students to oppose the proposed change.
