With all this talk lately about the Commentator’s funding, I haven’t heard a couple things addressed. First of all, saying defunding it violates free speech is not right. Does the concept of free speech include that it must be publicly funded? Just because you withdraw public funds from a publication doesn’t mean you are saying they can’t say what they want. If there is a sizable group that likes what they have to say then they will find a way to fund it privately. It is actually quite communistic to force everyone to fund such
a publication.
Another thing you have been promoting is viewpoint neutrality. I fail to see why the decision to publicly fund such a strongly opinionated publication should be viewpoint neutral. All students paying fees have viewpoints, and we certainly care what our money is going to support. The idea is not that student government is viewpoint neutral, but that it represents the overall viewpoints of its constituents. While that could threaten to stifle minority voice, minority voices need to find their own way to be funded.
Ideally, nobody should be forced to fund something they disagree with, but when you fund a minority, more people are being forced against their will than if you fund a majority. I have my own radical opinions. Does that mean it is wrong for the PFC to deny me money to print out and distribute my opinions? Or does this concept only apply to old and established publications. Well, in that case, it doesn’t seem to promote diversity as much anymore, does it?
Guru Rattan Khalsa
Undergraduate