The Undergraduate Students Association Council made the right
decision to postpone a resolution Tuesday that could open up
funding for dozens of independent student groups ““ many of
which have inherently religious or political missions.
The apportionment of student group funding is one of
USAC’s most important roles; examining the issue of
independent student group funding is a worthy task, but should not
be done with haste. Currently, independent groups are not
officially recognized by the university and are not eligible for
base-funding from USAC. A proposed change in USAC’s bylaws,
put forth by Students United for Reform and Equality slate members,
would make all student groups eligible for funding. But for a
variety of reasons, now is not the right time to vote on what would
be a momentous change.
In recent years, student group funding has become central to the
formation of a political divide between two slates, Student
Empowerment! and S.U.R.E.
Student Empowerment! councilmembers questioned whether S.U.R.E.
sought to gain politically from the proposed new funding rules, and
S.U.R.E. leader and council president David Dahle worked to
eliminate some concerns by supporting the postponement. Such action
will delay a decision on the issue until after the May elections,
hopefully reducing the politicization of the outcome.
But, there are still other problems.
A 1997 Supreme Court case ruled student group funding must be
done in a “content neutral” fashion. Dahle believes
this means all groups ““ whether religious, political or
cultural ““Â should be eligible for funding.
But it’s not so simple.
The UC Office of the President is expected to create a policy
based on the Supreme Court case regarding the funding of
independent groups within the next year. That decision may
interpret the vague “content neutral” policy
differently than S.U.R.E. has done. If this happens, council would
have to amend its bylaws again.
Until UCOP’s ruling, USAC should be careful with which
groups it is funding.
Current guidelines are designed to keep discriminatory groups
from being recognized or funded. Councilmembers brought up concerns
that a lawsuit could stem from the funding of discriminatory groups
since current policies hold funding bodies responsible for the
actions of groups they support. If a USAC-funded group were to
become involved in a legal battle, ASUCLA or UCLA could be legally
and financially exposed. Waiting for UCOP would place legal
responsibility on it, rather than UCLA.
But putting political and legal questions aside, extending
blanket eligibility to independent groups could dilute the impact
of USAC’s funding support for current groups.
Established campus groups like MEChA, the African Student Union
and the Jewish Student Union receive substantial support from USAC
and would likely suffer a reduction to their budgets if funding was
made available to more groups. It would be troublesome if existing,
successful programs were cut to make way for new, unproven programs
““ especially if they targeted only specific religious and
political groups.
Though already-funded groups sometimes have political or
religious components, those groups at least meet strict
requirements for becoming officially recognized student
organizations. Community service, co-planning with other groups,
and establishing education value are required components ““
independent student groups only need three people to decide on a
name. An example is Samahang Pilipino, which relies on USAC funding
for its Pilipino culture night, a massive student production that
enriches the campus. It would be sad to see a shorter Pilipino
Culture night at the expense of a student-funded talk from Ann
Coulter or Ariana Huffington.