To the Editor:
This is in response to August Fietkau’s editorial in last week’s issue, titled “Make funding more consistent.” I can’t vouch for every single cultural club on campus, but I know from personal experience that many of them are very much open to people from cultures that are not their own. It can be awkward sometimes, but the idea that any cultural organization is likely to primarily attract members of its own (or a closely related) culture seems inevitable. As long as the members of the club welcome all those interested in learning more about their culture—which they would be foolish not to do—things should work out fine.
That having been said, there is a very serious issue here that everyone (except Fietkau) has been avoiding. Culture, religion, and even politics are often (but not always) closely related or, in the most extreme cases, one and the same. What’s more, the very same type of benefits that all of the cultural clubs on campus provide with Union funding could be provided by religious and political clubs with Union funding. Just as our cultural clubs teach us about all of the different cultures in our world and sponsor activities and events that benefit the entire campus with Union funding, we have many religious and even political clubs who could be using Union funds to educate us about all of the world’s different religions and political philosophies and sponsor their own activities and events that benefit the entire campus.
Consider this: the number one reason that college students are not represented in government is that, statistically, they don’t vote. What if the Union funded a massive non-partisan student voter registration program run by the RPI College Republicans, College Democrats, and other political clubs? Would that not have just as much of a potential benefit to our campus as many of the excellent events currently sponsored by our cultural clubs? If I were a member of the local government here in Troy, I’d think twice about screwing with RPI students if several thousand of them voted for (or against) me.
I hear the same arguments on this issue again and again. They boil down to this: culture is less controversial and more politically correct to fund than religion or politics. If the latter were allowed to be Union-funded, you wouldn’t have to give the College Republicans and the College Democrats the same amount of money any more than you have to give the NSA and the BSA the same amount of money. Union funds are not based solely on what type of organization you are; they’re based on a number of things, including (most importantly in my mind) the club’s benefit to campus, and how well it uses Union money from year to year. Will there be accusations of bias down the line? Certainly, but Union funding should not be determined by how uncontroversial a club is.
I, for one, am fiscally conservative. The reason I would never run for President of the Union (besides the obvious) is that if elected, I would probably be assassinated a few days after taking office. Saving money at the expense of certain students aside, how long are we willing to deny ourselves, and especially all of the members of our political and religious clubs, the benefits that these clubs could provide simply because funding them is too much of a headache? It is not fair to us, it is not fair to them, and a decision needs to be made to open the possibility of funding to all three groups, or defund all of them.
Robert Otlowski
CSCI ’06
