The University’s Programs Finance Committee doles out some $5 million annually to various facilities (for example, the Student Recreation Center); subsidies (Lane Transit District and child care); and, largely, student groups. Some allocations fall into another category: off-campus associations.
Student fees are collected and disseminated under the assumption of materially benefiting those who pay them. Accordingly, because it is often more difficult to identify benefits imbued on students by a remote organization than it is for on-campus groups, these allocations deserve (and usually receive) additional scrutiny.
Indeed, PFC Chairman Adrian Gilmore observed: “When you go off-campus and you go to a federal level, we as a board really need to make sure that the incidental fee is going to benefit students at the University of Oregon.”
During a January PFC meeting, committee members took some issue with the ASUO Executive’s request to fund the United States Student Association, a national political group that lobbies on behalf of students. The USSA originally requested $20,000 in student fees but agreed to let funding increase “gradually.” The final executive recommendation was $7,435, which could cover dues and student travel to conferences.
According to USSA’s Web site, “The organization tracks and lobbies federal legislation and policy, and organizes students from across the country to participate in the political process, through testifying in official Congressional hearings, letter-writing campaigns, and face-to-face lobby visits between students and their elected officials.”
Commendably, the PFC was originally wary of the proposal, which called for a several hundred percent increase over the previous year’s allocation.
“What makes this not a partisan group? Why should we fund this?” PFC Sen. Colin Andries asked.
ASUO President Maddy Melton defended the proposal, saying the organization doesn’t campaign for particular candidates. Moreover, USSA’s lobbying inarguably benefits at least some students: Melton said USSA’s efforts have helped protect the Pell Grant and reauthorize the Higher Education Act.
Funding was tabled until PFC’s Jan. 29 meeting, when PFC passed a $9,640 budget for the organization, a whopping 776.5 percent increase.
That students are evidently compelled to fund an explicitly partisan group that lobbies specific legislation should irk fee-paying students, regardless of their political slant and whether they materially benefit from the USSA subsidy.
Some students might argue that diverting funds to a hypothetical (and implicitly political) national lobby promoting, for instance, abstinence-only education and the banning of contraceptives in public universities’ student health centers would materially benefit students, but many students — those on the Emerald’s Editorial Board included — would disagree. Some of those would resent, too, their incidental fees being used for such a purpose.
Simply put, mandatory student fees shouldn’t be diverted to any partisan, lobbying end, regardless of how much students benefit from them.