In response to Thursday’s guest commentary by Tyler Polich, “OSPIRG fosters growth,” (ODE, March 4) Polich seems to misinterpret the reasoning behind the ASUO budgeting process.
He repeatedly refers to OSPIRG as a program. However, it’s not a student-run program, but rather a contracted service. In his commentary, Polich claims OSPIRG should be judged not on the merit of tangible results, but on the ephemeral quality of the “student experience” it brings. He says: “Whether that progress comes fully to fruition, to me, is irrelevant. The student experience facilitated through OSPIRG serves a far greater function than simply reducing the cost of textbooks.”
That progress is very relevant. It’s a service provided to University students, paid for by students. All contracts are required to provide evidence of direct benefits to campus. At OSPIRG’s requested budget of $117,000, this absolutely must occur. Unfortunately, OSPIRG has been unable to show how it directly benefits this campus, which is why the ACFC has refused to fund it for two years in a row.
There are already plenty of opportunities for leadership development and growth available to students. Just a few examples include: the Holden Leadership Center, the ASUO, or one of the 150-plus student programs that operate — and keep their money — on campus. Furthermore, these leadership opportunities have continued to grow on campus and have provided more advantageous results to the student body.
If OSPIRG wants to send student money off campus, it must show it can provide more than a benefit to just its members and its paid staff in Portland. We want our money put toward the most effective causes that will provide the greatest opportunities to University students.
[email protected]