Due in part to the large impact that Proposition 54 ““ a
measure that would ban the state from collecting race-based data
““ could have in education and research, many student leaders
are putting in endless hours of energy, effort, and sometimes,
money to advocate against the measure.
Though the hours of energy and effort put in may not be objected
to, some question whether this is a violation of University of
California policy for student officials to spend student fees on
political campaigns.
Recent reports from UC Berkeley’s campus newspaper state
that the school’s graduate and undergraduate student
governments’ earmarking of $35,000 for a “No on Prop
54″ campaign directly violates UC guidelines and is now in
danger of a lawsuit.
According to UC guidelines, under state law, university
resources may not be used to make contributions for campaign
purposes.
“(Student government) is an official UC unit that operates
under the same guidelines as the UC,” said UC spokesman Hanan
Eisenman.
But Anu Joshi, vice president of external affairs on
Berkeley’s undergraduate student government, said these
guidelines may not apply to the school’s situation.
The money was allocated to a registered student group in
association with student government offices, Joshi said. According
to updated UC guidelines, all student groups registered with the
university can receive student government funding on a viewpoint
neutral basis.
The guidelines were updated after the Supreme Court ruled in
Southworth v. University of Wisconsin that the university could not
give or deny funding to organizations based solely on their
viewpoint.
Whatever the case, Berkeley officials are looking into the
situation and no money has or will be spent on the campaign until
administration approval is granted, said Berkeley spokeswoman Janet
Gilmore.
At UCLA, no money by the student government has yet been spent
on the “No on Prop 54″ campaign, though Matt Kaczmarek,
external vice president of the Undergraduate Students Association
Council, said he was in the process of planning out a budget.
At the USAC general meeting Tuesday night, the council approved
$400 to the Asian Pacific Coalition to spend on a “day of
action” on Oct. 1 to advocate against the proposition.
Though student groups can use the money to advocate,
councilmembers will be more careful in their actions regarding the
measure in the upcoming days.
The recent controversy will hamper some efforts of educating
students about the measure, Kaczmarek said.
But Joshi still believes lobbying activities may be funded by
student funds on student-related matters.
Despite the increasing difficulty in continuing the campaign,
Joshi maintained that she will continue the “good work”
she has been doing.
Rumors have begun to spread on the Berkeley campus about efforts
being made to recall Joshi from office.
“I believe in the work I am doing, and student government
is a place to make things happen, and I’m being made a target
because I am making things happen,” she said.
Student leaders from UCLA have been trying to make things happen
by advocating against the measure using resources from Berkeley,
Kaczmarek said. All the flyers and buttons on the UCLA campus were
obtained from the Berkeley campus.
Though USAC individual offices have yet to use student fees on
the political campaign, the council’s bylaws do not
explicitly prohibit the use of mandatory fees on political groups
or causes.