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