Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 25, 1995)
EDITORIAL Pot icy jeopardizes groups’ funding Thu funding foundation for many student groups may require some shoring up. as student government attempts to grapple with a l'tflS Oregon attorney gener id’s opinion that may severely limit the kinds of groups that may receive funding through mandatory inc idental fees. Students For Choice, the University's abortion rights group, had its funding put in jeopardy last week as the ASUO Programs Finance Committee rejected the group's goal statement A goat statement must in* approved lor the organization to receive any student incidental fees, The committee’s decision may bo a bellwether for oth er groups that espouse a particular political or ideologi cal view The First Amendment rights of students may be implicated, according to the attorney general's opin ion, when they are required to pay incidental fees to sup port groups with which they don't agree The opinion makes logical sense, particularly in the abstract. Of course a student shouldn't be forced to finance a group that disagrees with his or her personal point of view It’s in specific applications that the opinion becomes worrisome, particularly for groups such as Students For Choir e. The opinion, which carries the weight of law. states that a student group must meet several criteria to receive mandator!Iv assessed student fees. Among these is the requirement that the group "will serve to enhance the ability of its students as a whole to express themselves, or that it will otherwise serve the < oiler live interests of students as a class." This is a reasonable restriction. If a group i an not meet this requirement, it ought to seek funding only from those who support the group’s ideas This is entirely possible; fund raising already provides a chunk of the financial support for many groups If the logistics could !»' worked out, an optional fee could bo included on tuition bills, so that only interest ed and approving students would ini charged it may ire possible for Students For Choir e to salvage its funding, if it alters its goal statement. Ii it is a group primarily concerned with contributing to the exchange of ideas on campus, rather than pursuing a particular political end, then it may est ape the budget axe. Hut it's hard to imagine how a group so plainly Con ner ted to one side of an issue, such as Students For Choice, could refrain from pushing its one point of view. It is encouraging to see that at least some committee members are taking the attorney general’s opinion seri ously. now that It has boon brought to their attention. bet's hope groups prepare their goal statements and budget requests with the new guidelines in mind, so that the committee won't have to send them back to the drawing board. Oregon Daily PQ bOi )IW f<Xrt*«| 0«tGO**'*CJ I'm n»#r f *m*U ■» putmtfmil ,sa*y Mnk) Pvougti l 'KUy (kxvyy Pm aftaot y*** and t uaaday and Trturft4*y do'*ng (h# by !ha O'*jcn 0«’y t nwtmi Co , knc « the IPvywwty o! Ooowv t ugwm. Oegon fm f mmn»« Opoxntoa •xleponiXirtf* at Pm tPwm vty win othcma m Sum 300 erf Pm f rt) Uanxpiat Umoo and m a iwwft* o< Pm Aaaocmtad Prm Th* l "mokJ * pxvata proparty TN» uniaa^rf igowat e» m cV ;mt»« t» prooatuubta byUM tdttor-tn-Chmrf Kafy Soto Managing Editor Editor MiEdKor Nwt Art Editor f railanco Editor U**d incMTi HoOb* f Wvm J•* P**U> lO* ft*t****> Editor Sports IdMor Supptsmsnts Edtor MigUl C<fNor flat** i, * UarYttt On» Mat; Tn*ia f4o& Amy C-oAjmbo f (Jrtorm F nadancft von uarp. Sfi*A»rW Cic>t«rrm«n( Marcaton* i (3mrn<H C&runutviy. Trftany Smart. AApftar £ fAcaton A^na’Wlrufttwi N»w« Staff Stava Aatx*y Amy CoMnfco. P«l D^y. Amy L Davanpcxl Taaha t icfianaaftar Pnmo fontana. Qiyd f orman. Ovnrtaphw feu. Man Garlon, Gary Gam Jo* Harwood *fi» ttwvy T'ffw# Kaarnay Shannon KaeMf. Adam K#vf*r Su/anna Mar'* M*% U Tyl* IWn fcfcx*»-~« Monfcpxnary. Ann* Momii *0*n<«fct Co***n Pohfcg Sharry Mi* SaftMurav Paul Van Scfcte. ttdafu Tom*©**, Km W<m* OrM*> Womack (iawa Manager Judy ‘WJ Atfva#tia»ng Director Production Manager IAoNM «o*» Advertising Anna Amack* Anita Borgaat Ua-co Ch«ng. Tony Fo» Inn t«ar»n*r Ncott f tarJar am y Mu v '..»V'Wan*' Tc" Mnot^aadl *«**ey W«v*«v Oasaiftad Marcftant V4» vi^a Ky*« £)***» Jo* Satan DtiCrtfcutton John long. f »«v Hafcoc/< Rag^na «’*uprv* ©utinaaa Kathy Carton*. St^WMaor juOyCormty Production Uahi-a Ml Cobh P'otACfon CtoorxAna&v Shaar'-a Afcet*. Ta« Gdulna’y. 0r*d Jo*A Jarwtar Roland Q*y*on Y** Nwrvoom But*a#*s Oftic# W6-55H Ot»pi«y A0v*rtJ»Jng Advert* ting >•63712 346-4343 MR SPIAKEP / MOVt THAI 7V«t COHCRrtS uvt IT TM* RVA.ES TMf RRT Of AMERICA FOUOKS. „MY LORD.. ME WANTS MS TO Borrow and ypcwo.f ■ OPINION Student groups face possible cuts * PwmoA. J. Komis \ In 1985, Dave Frohmnaver, Ihcn tttortiuv general of our tlttv. wrote on opinion to which w<‘ should .ill take heed, espe cially considering that we are in the midst of budget hearings Frohnmaver wrote that, '‘f irst Amendment interests in free expression and as mm Hit ton are implicated when on individual is compelled to provide finan cial support to an organization that adv<K ate* viewpoints with which that individual dis agrees He did make some exceptions to lus opinion, and stated if a group could somehow, “serve the collet live interests of stu dents ns a i lass,'' the distribu tion of student monies i mild be justified Last week, this came to the forefront of campus poll tic s when Students for Choice went before the ASUO Programs Finance Committee to present its goals statement in order to receive its funding for next year Matt McGinnis, a member of the committee, told Students for Choice that in regard to the above opinion, “to tax all the students to fund a political orga nization becomes difficult." and the body proceeded, by a 3-3 vote, to deny the group funding This could lead to a momen tous shift of power on our cam pus, A large portion of the groups which receive our fees are at least slightly, if not com pletely. politically oriented If this opinion is brought forth again when these organizations bring their goal statements to the committee, many may fai e the same fate as Students for Choice There are three groups which immediately come to mind that would seem especially suscepti ble to such cuts They are the United Status Student Assoc.ia tion. the Oregon Student Lobby and the Oregon Student Public interest (.roup The l'SNA constitution d(*s( rile-s the group ns a “repre sentative body" composed of "student at tivists and advocates dedicated to the principles of expanding ac < ess to higher edu cation for nil persons ” Last year's budget gave the I SNA $10,927 of our fees It is an inherently political organiza tion, dtie to the fact that it is basically a lobbying group whose goal is to represent the students under its banner Although its views are almost ••si lusiveh from the far left of the ideologic al spec truin, the group should not have a prob lem proving that they provide for our "colics live interests.'' or at least attempt to do so The OSL is basically a UNSA whic h works at the state level Las! year it was allocated 534,299 Like USSA. it is a lob by for the benefit of students, and bv the same token should have little trouble in holding its financial position on this cam pus The previous two groups were easy, but OSPIRG is a different story The environmental watchdog group received a whopping 5112,750 last year, making it one of the richest groups til last year's budget This year may Ik- different Unlike USSA and OSL. OSPIRG's main purpose is not to direc tly serve students, but the environment. This makes it much more difficult for them to prove that the use of student fees towards their support does not violate the First Amend ment Last week, a representative from OSPIRG, spoke to us briefly before class She told us that among other things they were a "good government" group For them to support "good government” means they must form their own definition of what this means. This is a polit ical activity if there ever was one, and all of us are supporting it. whether we agree with them or not. She prw ceded to inform us that "this new Congress is terri ble, thev arts going to do horrible things to' tin- etn ironinent This is an even more politicoI, statement than the previous one I he group believes the new members of Congress (transla tion: Republicans) are not to be trusted, and their type of envi ronmental regulation, or per haps to be more pre< ise the la( k thereof, is not the appropriate one A group with such views, • whether right or wrong, has u i onstitotional right to assemble. That is what makes America, great. But. bv the same token we must remember the words of President Frohnmaver in regard to the First Amendment. Some students, as a matter of fat t protsibly most, do not follow the partv-lme green stance of OSPIRG I here have been peo ple who have questioned the st ientifu validity of many of the principles, which radical groups such as OSPIRG embrace. There are others who do not agree with the movement's apparent disre gard to the sanctity of the free market and the rights of busi nesses over the environment, ami some on this campus, believe it or not. are actually Republicans. For people in any of these groups, or for those who simply think their money should l>e in their own pockets rather than in those of the radical elites of the environmental movement, sup port of OSPIRG with student fees clearly violates Frohnmay er's opinion. Our "collective interests" are not served by this organization It serves solely those who believe in the precepts of the movement. For such a group to bo sup ported by our collective fees is not only a violation of the ideals of Jeffersonian Democracy upon which our nation is built, but is simply unfair. Primo A / Fontana is a colum nist for the Emerald
