The Multicultural Center objects to the sudden creation of the Recognition Review Committee because it is overreaching and a potential abuse of power by the ASUO Executive. It appointed a five-member committee that can summarily derecognize student groups. The MCC believes that students did not elect the ASUO Exec to decide whether a student organization has the right to exist and receive funds. RRC Chairman and Programs Administrator David Goward has made repeated statements that the RRC does not exist to defund organizations deemed not worthy of recognition. This reassurance is completely disingenuous because a vote of ASUO non-recognition obviously results in complete ineligibility for ASUO funding.
The MCC believes that the ASUO Exec and the RRC have not created transparent review and appeal processes. Also problematic is the ASUO Executive’s recent add-on appointment of the ASUO vice president as a member of the RRC without an election process. This is clearly inconsistent with former ASUO President Adam Petkun’s original memo that the ASUO Exec relies on in forming the RRC.
In addition, the RRC continues to organize in nonpublic manner; holding meetings without notifying all of the ASUO programs.
Furthermore, it is our understanding that it is the Program Finance Committee’s role to examine the missions and goals of various organizations. Neither the Exec nor Goward have clarified why the PFC’s power to review these groups is being supplanted by a new RRC.
A memo by Goward states: “When the concept of duplication of services arises, I want to emphasize that it mainly pertains to the approval of new groups.” Goward and other EMU administrators, however, have mentioned to students the proposal of merging several existing student groups of color without understanding or knowing the specific and different needs and interests that various groups address, disguising a thinly veiled institutionalized cultural incompetence under the general rubric of “duplication of services.”
The MCC believes that these political appointments may reflect a biased cultural lens as to what is recognized as the actual programming needs for underrepresented students, potentially nullifying students’ ability to exercise their right to self-determination in organizing campus community groups.
Any discussion of forming such a committee should have had the majority support of fee-funded groups and the student body, and should be subject to campus community input. We hope the ASUO Constitutional Court and campus community agree that the RRC is harmful to community-building, has powers that are overreaching and its purported duty to review program mission statements is already delegated by the Green Book to the PFC, which has done a more than adequate job of recognizing and supporting student organizations.
The Multicultural Center