For too long, the Undergraduate Students Association Council has
spent its energies promoting certain viewpoints at the expense of
others. Student groups that support the dominant slate in USAC
somehow end up with the most money.
The ongoing debate over USAC’s funding practices and the
Center for Student Programming’s subjective group
registration guidelines provide an important opportunity to examine
and improve the process that most directly affects campus
politics.
The requirements USAC sets for funding eligibility depend on the
poorly defined CSP guidelines which prevent many campus groups from
being officially recognized student organizations, which would in
turn make them eligible to receive funding.
Currently, no group that admits to having strong political or
religious inclinations can apply for funding. The supporters of
this policy claim groups which might discriminate based on
politics, race or religion should not be entitled to public funds.
At face value, this reason is legitimate.
But the problem arises when we consider the subjectivity of the
word “admit.” Does the fact that a group admits or
denies being political mean it is or isn’t? Does the fact
that Bruin Democrats has the word “Democrat” in its
name mean that the group is inherently more political than MEChA,
for example?
Of course not. There is no reason why an organization that
continues to stand by a racist and revolutionary founding document
receives $6,500 in funding drawn from student fees while a group
representing a key shareholder in our two-party system cannot
receive any.
The distinction between a group’s eligibility and
ineligibility for funding is necessary. Nonetheless, the present
structure rewards political and dishonest organizations while
excluding political and honest ones.
But the CSP is only one part of UCLA’s eroded funding
practices. Current USAC policies exploit the confusing CSP
guidelines and create subjective guidelines of its own.
The council’s bylaws state, “Allocations are to be
made such that no organization is discriminated against based on
its views.”
To ensure this fairness, the bylaws also establish the
“use of standardized criteria” as necessary for
“all funding decisions.” Presently, a point system is
used. Each group that applies for funding is judged according to
objective criteria and given a certain number of points. Then,
through another set of objective criteria, the points are converted
into a dollar amount and the money is allocated. Upon first
consideration, the system seems fair.
But according to an amicus curiae brief General Representative
Josh Lawson filed with the Judicial Board, the current standardized
criteria are failing to prevent discrimination and the
politicization of the funding process.
There is little correlation between the points a group is given
and the actual funding it receives.
The sad fact is that for different groups, each point has a
different dollar value. For example, for the Cultural Affairs
Commission, every point received amounts to $42.33. But for Le
Cercle Francophone, on the other hand, one point yields only $4.79.
Similarly, if both Le Cercle Francophone and Samahang Pilipino
hypothetically received an identical 155 points, there would still
be a difference of $5,705.98 between them.
More disturbingly, whereas the average Students First! general
representative receives $140 per point, a Students United for
Reform and Equality general representative receives only $118 per
point. The only possible explanation for this clear and widespread
discrepancy is that USAC has become an organization that promotes
its ideological allies while sidelining its adversaries.
But many groups cannot receive any funding. Last week,
UCLA’s administration voiced a concern about the eligibility
guidelines that bar some groups from receiving funds. Dean of
Students Robert Naples told the Daily Bruin, “I know that
USAC has made an effort over the past couple of years to be in
compliance with systemwide policy. Recent interpretations suggest
that they may not be.” The recent interpretations in question
involve a 1999 Supreme Court ruling and a UC Office of the
President nondiscrimination policy statement that seem to
contradict USAC’s funding practices.
When considered in its totality, the funding situation at UCLA
paints a gloomy picture of a politicized establishment that
threatens objectivity, open inquiry and the diversity of opinions.
The CSP’s subjective guidelines and USAC’s funding
system work in tandem to breed an environment of political
intolerance.
All organizations ““ whether political, religious or
otherwise ““ that do not discriminate when it comes to
membership should receive funding. It is only in this manner that
two goals can be reached at the same time: the establishment of
objective criteria and the furtherance of the cause of racial,
religious and intellectual diversity.
The governing bodies at UCLA must fashion themselves after the
government of the United States: a republic that is bound by fair,
objectively defined, equally applied laws only under the
constraints of which the majority can have a voice.
USAC should take the initiative in restoring fairness to the
funding process. Otherwise, it should be dissolved and defunded as
a political and discriminatory organization.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at hovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.