This year, the student body gave a subset of Union clubs about $22,000 (almost $30,000 last year). That’s out of the total of about $165,000 spent on clubs ($180,000 last year). So? Well, this is a subset of clubs you’re basically not welcome to join, by virtue of your politics, nationality, ethnicity, or any number of other factors. But, you say, the Student Senate has a policy of not funding religious or political organizations.
True enough. But unfortunately, that policy has something of a large loophole that has been exploited and overused by clubs I would put in the same category as religious and political ones, though sometimes the classification is not as clear-cut. Nevertheless, they share the same qualities that cause the Union not to fund religious or political organizations.
I’ll term these organizations “Restricted Interest Groups” (RIGs). Many (though by no means all) of them go by another name—cultural organizations. Now this isn’t to say I disapprove of their existence—any club with a legitimate purpose is welcome as a member of the Union and I happen to enjoy being exposed to new and different cultural experiences. But their monopolization of the Union building and its resources is outrageous.
Every so often, student government gets embroiled in a debate over the ban on funding religious or political organizations. There are good points on each side, but I choose to take neither—and instead point out that there needs to be a solid policy in place for all RIGs (which includes religious and political organizations) so that the budgeting process can be equitable for everyone. In my mind, the reason we don’t fund the College Republicans is exactly the same reason we shouldn’t fund the hypothetical “Students from Mountainous Areas in Northeastern Elbonia Association.” But the reason the Union would likely approve the Elbonian Students Association (if they applied tomorrow) is because it’s politically correct to do so.
However, should we choose to fund RIGs—that would include religious and political organizations—then we should fund them all, not just the ones student government finds it politically expedient to fund. If funding RIGs is the course we wish to take, perhaps a policy of giving each RIG a maximum $1,000 subsidy would be a wise balance.
So what can we do about it? That depends. You may disagree (as many do) and decide that RIGs should be funded in proportion to the number of “programs” they run. After all, the amount is relatively small and a few students are likely fulfilled by them. Furthermore, the debate over this is likely to be nasty—as many of our representatives are stake-holders in RIGs. However, keeping the status quo can be a dangerous proposition. I would hate to see our activity fee follow the trend of our tuition—increasing out of control each year with no end in sight.
