The Programs Finance Committee is one of the most important aspects of student government. By overseeing and determining the outcome of the budget process for all ASUO student programs, the PFC maintains student control of millions of dollars in student incidental fees every year.
Or at least it did until Tuesday night, when the PFC voted to approve The Insurgent’s budget but put it in a holding account until questions about the independent newspaper’s December issue could be answered. With this decision — ostensibly made to keep the process moving — the PFC showed a lack of courage and threatened student control of student money.
Questions about The Insurgent surfaced recently, when concerned people started calling ASUO President Jay Breslow about the newspaper’s decision to publish the Animal Liberation Front’s primer — an explanation of that underground group’s philosophy and a step-by-step guide to arson, breaking and entering, vandalism and sabotage.
At The Insurgent’s PFC budget hearing, the issue of whether it was responsible and legal to print such material became the primary concern of the PFC members. As the Emerald editorial board previously opined, we don’t believe it was a responsible decision to print what could be interpreted as an incitement to commit crimes. We think it was a mistake to print contact information for University animal researchers in the same issue — and on a page facing the A.L.F. primer.
What the PFC members overlooked, however, is that it is not their mission to determine whether the printing was ethical, responsible or legal. Their charge is to examine the budgets and the mission statements of student groups and determine whether the groups contribute to the “cultural and physical enhancement of the
University.”
The PFC did approve The Insurgent’s budget and the group’s mission statement. After much discussion, the members of the committee even seemed to admit that The Insurgent did enhance the University. Their final concern, as expressed by member Aaron Weck’s motion, was that if The Insurgent is sued over the publication of the A.L.F. primer or the researchers’ contact information, such suits could open the University, the ASUO and the student incidental fee to lawsuits as well. Whether a lawsuit against The Insurgent would be successful is completely unknown. No one present at the PFC meeting had that knowledge. If a lawsuit was successful, would it open the incidental fee to lawsuits? Again, no one at the meeting knew for sure.
The important point is that we believe, as Insurgent collective member Willie Thompson expressed forcefully and repeatedly, that the PFC has no authority to determine the legality of any specific content produced by any specific student program. The PFC’s job is to either approve the program’s budget or not, as a whole, based on criteria other than content.
The Emerald would certainly not want the PFC to argue over the acceptability of ideas expressed in our paper, nor in any other student publication. Whether those ideas are legal or not, or acceptable or not, is a matter for higher bodies to decide — such as the Student Senate or state and federal courts.
By acting to cover its ass instead of acting as a decision-making body, the PFC exposed the student fee process to the judgment of the University administration. What a chilling effect, indeed, on free speech if University President Dave Frohnmayer’s legal counsel decides that student money cannot be given to a student group because that group’s content is offensive.
The PFC process is confusing and can seem arbitrary to those outside student government. Making such an impotent decision, instead of exerting the power that the PFC does have, surely does nothing to reassure students that their millions of dollars are being allocated fairly.
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to [email protected].