Last week, the Athletics and Contracts Finance Committee approved OSPIRG’s request for a 97 percent budget increase.
An increase it neither deserves nor earned.
I’m honestly not surprised that they were given the affirmative vote considering OSPIRG’s presence on campus and its relentless campaigning for not only its continued existence, but also for whatever new flavor-of-the-week-cause they have undertaken.
However, what issues they support are almost besides the point. The single largest question to ask is: Why are you, as a student with limited income and large costs, forced to subsidize the cost of a group that doesn’t benefit you?@@there are several groups on campus that don’t benefit me. i think a better question is why doesn’t ospirg stick to just campus- and student-related issues@@
We’re all saddled with a bill for a group that has accomplished what exactly? In 2009, then-ASUO President Sam Dotters-Katz argued for defunding OSPIRG, and the entirety of the ACFC did the same. Their unanimous vote reflected the student body’s wish to stop paying for a group that wasn’t yielding tangible results.
What has changed in these short, three years? Nothing. Back in 1998, OSPIRG had its funding removed by student vote. But in 1999, OSPIRG was right back on campus after a $1,200 lobbying campaign funded entirely without campus or student funds.
At this point, it seems that OSPIRG is more concerned with justifying its own existence then with achieving any of its goals.@@i like this point@@
Even former OSPIRG State Board Member Peter Knox said, “OSPIRG relies on short burst of energy. They’ll create a huge campaign and use all its resources to reaffirm funding. It’s basically a big sales pitch.”
They continually put on a song-and-dance in hopes of getting funds, which they can use at its discretion, and students like you and me are stuck with paying for a group that not only gives so little return of investment, but also one that may be working for returns that we don’t condone nor wish to contribute to.
Let’s look at any one of the many campaigns OSPIRG has running right now: Affordable Higher Education, Don’t Get Ripped Off, Energy Service Corps, Health Care@@up-style here?@@ and the list goes on and on.
Taking a step back, it’s clear that OSPIRG has some pretty lofty goals, and whether you agree with them or not is commendable despite how unattainable some of them seem to be. But, let’s for instance say that its Stop Subsidizing Obesity campaign is something you’re entirely against. Perhaps you take no issue with “Big Ag” making profits off of genetically modified organisms, or you think that stopping obesity is the task of every individual and not that of the government.
Regardless of why you’re in opposition, congratulations, you now have paid money to OSPIRG to help them fight against the very things you are in favor of.
It is difficult to see why contributing to this group, when you’d otherwise be in opposition of them, is then somehow OK. It would be akin to a secular person donating to organizations that wish to institute more religious values or doctrine into government.
In addition, nobody would expect the other to do so. In absolutely no other situation would you expect someone to willingly spend money on an agenda that is contrary to its own. But all students are expected to fund this particular group? Again, for a group that rarely delivers tangible results?
Perhaps the biggest issue I have with all of this is the hypocrisy demonstrated by OSPIRG’s adherents. The only reason OSPIRG is allowed to exist in its current form at the University is because people more or less agree with its agenda.
They have somehow justified OSPIRG being subsidized by everyone because they are working towards a good cause. And although I might even be inclined to find one cause I agree with, it doesn’t mean I support them wholesale nor should I be forced to pony up to do so.
If OSPIRG was in favor of clubbing baby seals for their fur so people could live more comfortably, then people would be up in arms. There would be protests in the EMU Amphitheater, letters to the editors would arrive en masse and ASUO Senate meetings would be drowned out by chanters demanding OSPIRG be defunded by the ASUO.
ASUO Sen. Ben Rudin, whom I’ve had my fair share of disagreements with, is actually one of the few who gets how hypocritical it is to demand funding from those that wish to see the organization defunded.
Just because you may agree with a position or agenda doesn’t mean you force others to pay for you to continue on with that position — especially when they rather put their money into something they care about.
People vote with their wallets on a daily basis. Why then, on campus, are we not allowed to?
