Of the various duties charged to the Undergraduate Students
Association Council, the allocation of funding to student groups
gives USAC the most direct influence on student life. But USAC
funding bylaws are based on confusing definitions that do not give
student groups equal opportunities to apply for money. It is time
for USAC to change its unfair allocation system.
At the center of the issue is funding for overtly political and
religious organizations ““ and the concern that some of these
organizations are discriminatory. Under the existing system, groups
that admit to having strong political or religious interests are
not allowed to apply for for even one dollar from USAC.
But there is a system of dual standards where “officially
recognized organizations” can apply for funding but
“independent organizations” cannot. According the the
Center for Student Programming handbook, the main difference
between these groups is that only officially recognized
organizations “are sponsored by some entity on
campus.”
The difference between the two categories runs deeper.
Officially recognized organizations are considered to be entities
ultimately responsible to UCLA. This means officially recognized
organizations cannot discriminate based on race, sex or religion
and must act with the best interests of the university community in
mind. That makes sense.
But here’s the catch: The “programs, activities and
functions sponsored by an officially recognized organization may
not be political or religious in nature.”
This is an unrealistic restriction for two reasons. First,
although officially recognized organizations are supposedly
non-political and non-religious, many of them are in fact
politically and religiously oriented. And the second problem is
more profound: How can UCLA or USAC honestly decide what is
political ““ or not ““ and what is religious ““ or
not?
USAC members have said the main reason they do not fund
independent organizations is that they cannot sponsor groups with
potentially discriminatory practices. This is a valid concern, and
it illustrates that the CSP definitions of an independent
organization and an officially recognized organization are
critically flawed.
UCLA should not extend any recognition to discriminatory groups
that violate UC regulations. There should not be an
“independent” category for groups that might be more
likely to discriminate. But all groups not in this category should
be eligible for funding.
There should not be an illusionary difference created between
groups that pretend they are nonpolitical and nonreligious, and
groups that admit to their true nature.
USAC must work with the administration and redefine the way
campus groups are recognized and funded. Political and religious
groups deserve funding; discriminatory groups do not. The
difference is clear ““ in fact, it is clearer than the
difference between “nonpolitical” and
“political” groups.
All groups recognized by UCLA should be required to file a
statement of principles promising they are nondiscriminatory.
Groups refusing to do so and groups that exhibit discriminatory
behavior should be ineligible for funding. Funding is distributed
on a “viewpoint-neutral basis,” meaning USAC does not
favor groups based on their stances on issues, beliefs or
policies.
USAC officers, including the external vice president, agree
student governments should be allowed to fund political activities
and even support ballot initiatives. If student government can act
politically, why can’t student-funded organizations?
USAC should not ignore the problems that would be created by
opening up the funding process. The addition of dozens of eligible
student groups will strain USAC’s ability to fund worthy
groups and might worsen political divisions in the student
government. And there is always the possibility a discriminatory
group could somehow get funding. Last year, The Bruin opposed a
change to funding rules because the problem of discrimination was
unclear.
But now it is clear there should not be a blanket ban on funding
levied against groups that admit to having political or religious
attributes. That is discrimination.