Students should have say in how fees are used
By Daily Bruin Staff
March 14, 2001 9:00 p.m.
 Ben Shapiro Shapiro is a first-year
philosophy student bringing reason to the masses. E-mail him at
[email protected].
Click
Here for more articles by Ben Shapiro
These days it’s a wonderful thing to be a victim. As long
as you’re a victim, you’re worthy of great rewards. The
more you complain, the more cash you receive, even if it’s
the hard-earned cash of people who don’t agree with your
positions. It’s the normal, unaffiliated UC student who gets
left holding the bag. In this case, you’re paying mandatory
student fees to help fund student advocacy groups, no matter
whether you agree or disagree with their policies.
Just as long as those SAGs fit into the current bylaws, your or
your parents’ hard-earned money is going to fund groups that
you may find despicable. Even if it’s only a tiny amount of
money out of your tuition going to SAGs, it’s the message
that counts. And the message stinks.
SAGs receive sponsorship from the Undergraduate Students
Association Council as long as they represent students according to
four criteria. They must contribute to the “empowerment of
their community.” Sponsorship is granted on a
“content-neutral” basis, except for the fact that
current bylaws state as the second and third criteria: “SAGs
must have been historically and currently disadvantaged,
discriminated against”
(http://students.asucla.ucla.edu/Documents/bylaws.html).
And this “underrepresentation” can be defined as a
group which is, according to the fourth requirement,
“currently underrepresented in one or more of the following
areas: the student body, faculty, staff, and/or administration at
UCLA.” This is a pretty broad restriction; it seems to
eliminate no one except perhaps for straight white males.
Funding is “neutral” toward those groups that have
“had it rough” in the past. This is comparable to
saying that you will receive money no matter who you are as long as
you deserve sympathy. In the words of USAC President Elizabeth
Houston, “having that criteria stipulates that funding is
inherently content-driven.” (“Council set to vote on
SAG funding changes,” Daily Bruin, News, Feb. 27).
According to USAC, those groups which deserve the most sympathy
are the African Student Union, the Asian Pacific Coalition,
Samahang Pilipino, and MEChA. Together, these groups received 40
percent of funding ““ their total funding amounted to $35,560.
This means that for all 20 SAGs on campus, $88,900 total was
distributed.
Why should USAC’s judgment that a given SAG is worthy of
sympathy enable that SAG to be sponsored by money from student
fees? And even if policies are changed so that funding cannot be
handed out on the basis of viewpoint, there is a huge flaw in the
process. The proposed changes would allow all student-registered
organizations to be eligible for funding if they have an advisor, a
constitution and at least three members.
If student-funding must be maintained, then USAC is stuck
between a rock and a hard place. USAC is currently debating whether
to amend its bylaws. If it chooses to follow the Supreme Court
decision in the Southworth v. University of Wisconsin case, then
mandatory student fees would be legal if the money is distributed
without regard to content. If bylaws are changed to follow the
letter of that decision, then any student-registered group can be
granted university sponsorship if the they have the three
requisites.
The choice between impartial funding of SAGs and content-driven
funding of SAGs is unnecessary. USAC only has to take a very simple
step. All USAC must do is to stop requiring student fees for the
purpose of funding SAGs. Will USAC be ripped by the SAGs? Of
course, but sometimes the most realistic solution to a problem is
the most difficult. What a rational concept: people who pay tuition
actually get to avoid funding groups with which they disagree.
Forced charity is just a plain bad idea.
For example, MEChA’s statement of purpose says:
“MEChA is a multifunctional Chicana/o nationalist
organization that concentrates on political, social, educational,
and cultural issues that pertain to the Chicana/o community.”
It just so happens that many people on the UCLA campus are not
members of the Chicana/o community. Of these people whom MEChA does
not represent, many disagree with MEChA’s policies, one of
which calls for the repeal of SP-1 and SP-2. Why should those
people who are not represented by MEChA and disagree with
MEChA’s policies have to fund them?
For every student group there are those who disagree with its
policies. Why should dissenters have to pay for the upkeep of those
SAGs? It used to be that when someone wanted to effect changes in
the world, they would go out and do it the honest way ““ work
hard, gather others who felt the same way, pool their resources and
energy and lobby to make a difference. This is no longer the
case.
Now, groups that are interested in “advocating” a
certain viewpoint can merely claim
“underrepresentation,” fill out the papers, and if
approved, go pick up their check at the USAC office ““ a check
funded with the money of many who disagree with that SAG’s
policies.
Basing funding on any such subjective criteria as victim status
only propagates a victim mentality. If any group can state that its
past has been tough and be funded without any work on its part,
then there is a great incentive to claim victimization.
But this is a self-defeating method. If people want to overcome
hardships, they must learn to do so not from handouts, but from
learning self-reliance. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X both
advocated freedom ““ freedom from handouts and freedom to be
independent and equal to other men. In the words of Anwar al-Sadat,
former president of Egypt, “Only when he has ceased to need
things can a man truly be his own master and so really
exist.”
Student advocacy groups are important. They represent the views
of the “underrepresented” at UCLA. But those groups
that are not “underrepresented” or have not been
“discriminated against” in the past are then excluded
from USAC funding. And, if all groups are allowed funding, where
can USAC draw the line?
The only way to fix the problem is to let the SAGs do their own
work. Let them raise funds from their constituents. Let the money
that goes to put out their flyers come from the pockets of those
who agree with them.
Diversity can be maintained, but it should not be by the wallets
of those who hold different opinions from those advocated by a
given SAG. SAGs were instituted to empower the constituencies of
the groups. Now SAGs should empower UCLA students with the ability
to give their money to the groups they choose.
