Seg fee policy is limiting students
Change will affect how organizations are funded
Brian Reisinger
Issue date: 12/13/07 Section: Editorial/Opinion
"The statute provides for student involvement, but does not relieve the chancellors of their responsibility for fiscal oversight," Mash said at a Board of Regents meeting.
Is this to suggest, then, that before this policy, chancellors were somehow helpless while students went crazy with university money?
At Eau Claire, student members of the Finance Commission carefully consider what organizations would use their money for.
Administrators advise the commission on the range of their budget to prevent massive increases, and they attend deliberations. They remain respectful of student power and only offer themselves as a resource - but their presence in the process alone shows that there aren't going to be any surprises of consequence.
Take, for instance, a few years ago when Student Senate hesitated to give The Flip Side funding because it seemed to represent a liberal viewpoint. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education pointed out, this violated the legal standard of viewpoint neutrality; fees should go to groups regardless of ideology, not withheld because of it.
And university officials have since said on the record to The Spectator that they were watching the ill-advised decision and that it wouldn't have stood.
The controversy, it seems, was a rather small and moot point.
Controversies over student decisions have, to be frank, paled in comparison with some of those originating from the judgment of System administrators.
How about the time UW-Eau Claire prohibited an RA from holding Bible studies in his residence hall? Or, more related to student fees, the time outgoing UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley denied funding to a Catholic group? Both instances drew lawsuits, public outrage and a reversal of administrators' decisions.
These controversies aren't linked to the issues the new policy addresses. But they are examples where administrators made decisions that, whether right or wrong, weren't the wisest from a public image standpoint.
We shouldn't assume, of course, that our own chancellor or other administrators will make bad decisions. But we shouldn't assume that our students will, either.
Whatever aspect of the fee process you want to focus on and whatever the true impetus for it was, this new policy is a limit on student voice.
In Madison, it's a limit on what student organizations can do with their money in the here and now. At Eau Claire it's a limit on what organizations can hope to do in the future.
When it comes to student use of student money, that's pretty much the same thing.
Is this to suggest, then, that before this policy, chancellors were somehow helpless while students went crazy with university money?
At Eau Claire, student members of the Finance Commission carefully consider what organizations would use their money for.
Administrators advise the commission on the range of their budget to prevent massive increases, and they attend deliberations. They remain respectful of student power and only offer themselves as a resource - but their presence in the process alone shows that there aren't going to be any surprises of consequence.
Take, for instance, a few years ago when Student Senate hesitated to give The Flip Side funding because it seemed to represent a liberal viewpoint. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education pointed out, this violated the legal standard of viewpoint neutrality; fees should go to groups regardless of ideology, not withheld because of it.
And university officials have since said on the record to The Spectator that they were watching the ill-advised decision and that it wouldn't have stood.
The controversy, it seems, was a rather small and moot point.
Controversies over student decisions have, to be frank, paled in comparison with some of those originating from the judgment of System administrators.
How about the time UW-Eau Claire prohibited an RA from holding Bible studies in his residence hall? Or, more related to student fees, the time outgoing UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley denied funding to a Catholic group? Both instances drew lawsuits, public outrage and a reversal of administrators' decisions.
These controversies aren't linked to the issues the new policy addresses. But they are examples where administrators made decisions that, whether right or wrong, weren't the wisest from a public image standpoint.
We shouldn't assume, of course, that our own chancellor or other administrators will make bad decisions. But we shouldn't assume that our students will, either.
Whatever aspect of the fee process you want to focus on and whatever the true impetus for it was, this new policy is a limit on student voice.
In Madison, it's a limit on what student organizations can do with their money in the here and now. At Eau Claire it's a limit on what organizations can hope to do in the future.
When it comes to student use of student money, that's pretty much the same thing.
Be the first to comment on this story