I wasn’t aware of a certain Senate resolution until I read about it in The Poly last week. The policy of which I speak is the barring of the Executive Board from funding political and religious groups. I think I can understand why such a regulation would exist, and I can support the spirit of the law. However, I believe some important points need to be made clear if I am to support an actual piece of legislation. I think we need a clear, precise, and unambiguous definition for the terms “political” and “religious.” That way the clubs will know what it is they are allowed to do, and the E-Board will be able to perform their duties fairly. If we leave the terms undefined, it allows for fluctuating interpretations, enabling the E-Board to pick and choose at their whim what they deem to be political and religious, rather than follow set and agreed upon guidelines. As it is, the policy is far too ambiguous. I believe that the terms either need to be strictly defined, or the current policy revised in one way or another so that it is fair to all.

Another point I would like to address is a comment made in an editorial pertaining to this issue last week. The editors of The Poly expressed that “It is unfair to ask everyone to pay for beliefs or opinions that are not their own and fund clubs they cannot join.” While this sentiment is an admirable one that I mostly agree with, I feel I must point out its inconsistency with current Union funding. Groups that are discriminatory already receive Union funding. Just from the last issue of The Poly, three such organizations are the Black Students Alliance, the Pride Alliance, and the Muslim Women’s Association.

While one may say that anyone is free to be in these groups, the same could be said for the College Republicans or Democrats. In all seriousness, these groups all exist for the sake of the people in their own exclusive group, and while others may or may not be welcome, it’s not really for them.

Also, how anyone can claim that any organization with the word “Muslim” in the title is non-religious is beyond me. Each of these organizations is discriminatory in their own way, and so if we are going to eliminate funding for any of them on this basis, then we should eliminate funding for all of them. All I’m asking for is a fair playing field for all involved, whether that means funding for all or no funding for all. I hope the Senate takes some of this into consideration in their future decisions.

Michael Forbes