The Student Services Finance Committee for the 2006-07 fiscal year voted to minimally fund Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow at a meeting last Thursday.The process for allocating funding to student organizations at the University of Wisconsin has been the subject of high-profile litigation in the past: Board of Regents v. Southworth. The Supreme Court wrote that the First Amendment requires viewpoint neutrality: "The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views."
Lindsey Ourada, a University of Wisconsin senior and intern program director of CFACT, said in the past few years the group has grown drastically in interns and student participation....
Ourada said CFACT’s main goal is to represent the other side of the marketplace of ideas, which is oftentimes neglected....
Although this year’s CFACT budget proposal asked for a total of approximately $385,000, the organization received minimal funding — about $3,000....
“I think it’s a really good system as long as the people act viewpoint-neutrally and in a fair way, but it was just clear that that wasn’t the case. The decorum in the room was appalling,” she said. “Some committee members did do their job, so I’m thankful for that, but unfortunately, the majority did not.”...
Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group, a university organization with goals similar to CFACT, received $123,209 in funding from SSFC for the upcoming fiscal year.
November 21, 2005
Charges of viewpoint discrimination in funding student groups at UW.
The Badger Herald reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
CFACT sounds like my kind of group but I’m not sure viewpoint discrimination is at fault here. The spokesman for the Finance Committee claims CFACT’s funding request wasn’t sufficiently detailed and CFACT offers no proof to dispute this claim. Regardless, the phrase “marketplace of ideas” is used – at phrase I admire greatly – and I would say that with CFACT’s success, they’d neither need, nor want, funding from the Finance Committee. May the best ideas win, without the skewing inherent in public funding.
Tefta: Follow the link I give and you'll have your answer.
...minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views.
How small can the minority be and still get funding?
What do undergraduates need $385,000 for anyway?
In their "About" page, under "Government Regulation" CFACT speak approvingly of "exonomic growth". Er... growth outside the law, maybe? Cool! But it's probably just a typo.
brylin
I would think so. You can't very well fund a conservative group for $5 and an equivalent liberal one for $500,000 and claim viewpoint neutrality based on the fact that you funded both groups. (I am stipulating all things equal here, includig, quality of the funding requests).
Not being familiar with UW student funding, is the whole budget cash money, or is some of the money really facilities usage that has been converted monetary amount? I mean, $385 is a LOT of cash, but 'renting' offices from the school at whatever 'official' rate per square foot could be quite expensive...
Ah, that should be $385k in funding being a lot of money (thoug I do wish I had $395 in my pocket atm...)
"...policies that encourage landowner cooperation, respect private property rights, and utilize market-based incentives should be pursued wherever possible."
There's your reason, I suspect, for funding denial (from their website). And further they even advocated limited government and lower taxes. Such dangerous ideas, they must be quashed immediately! I hope they do have a litigation team in the wings; it's time for a public debate on all these issues.
"Strong defense, small government and responsible spending", sounds like they have more in common with a certain Wisconsin Senator than any conservaitve holding a top office. It's rather lazy to classify this as a case of the liberal SSFC vs. the conservative CFACT. The SSFC and ASM are known to favor those who come to meetings extremely well-prepared, with a detailed budget and a presentation that is clear and concise. This isn't a case of some horrible encroachment on the holy "marketplace of ideas", the represenatives were unprepared to defend a $385,000 budget and are now suffering the obvious consequences.
Got it, but I didn't really need to have it confirmed. I haven't been on a campus since I retired about 15 years ago. Then there were no students or anyone else for that matter (except me), who would whisper a word that wasn't politically correct. Oh, the names I was called!
The internet has wrought wonders.
Couldn't you form a club whose only reason for being would be to ask for funding?
You'd demand the same per student funding that the best funded club receives based on the rules of viewpoint neutrality.
The club would then split the funds extracted with all the members.
I'd call it the Kickback club.
Post a Comment