Monday, there will be an open forum to discuss the proposed Student Organization Recognition Policy. The policy is backward and unreasonable from multiple political persuasions.

Whether you’re a socialist, a conservative or a liberal, there are good reasons to oppose the plan. Here are some of them.

Socialists should oppose the plan as an attack on democratic self-management. It gives power over student organizations to individuals who are not affiliated with those groups, and that doesn’t make sense. The individuals forming the Student Organization Recognition Board would be given the power to reject student groups if their constitutions — now required — are deemed “unacceptable.” The policy lists requirements for group constitutions, but nothing in the language guarantees that the board would be held to any standard of integrity. It would be given the functional power to reject groups on a whim, and the policy’s safeguard against this is almost nonexistent. In addition, the new plan calls for a needless tiering system that ranks groups based on how “important” they are. By whose standards, you ask? No matter, tiering systems smack of class inequality and antagonism.

Conservatives should oppose the plan due to its bureaucratic structure. The plan lists page after page of new regulations of unnecessary oversight and interference. For example, mandate No. 19 states that “[a]ll advisers will be required to complete the Adviser Training Program and sign the Adviser Contract.” Let groups choose their own advisers and leave staff and faculty alone.

Furthermore, mandate No. 21 states that “[i]f an organization’s constitution is deemed acceptable after review by the Student Activities Center, it will be forward (sic) to the Student Organization Recognition Board (SORB). The SORB will review the constitution and ratify it by a majority vote. If a constitution is rejected, the organization has sixty (60) calendar days to revise and resubmit the constitution for approval.”

The plan will waste resources and centralize power. If the ISU College Republicans want to write a constitution, that’s their right, and the specifics should be none of the Student Activities Center’s business. Its members have already paid student fees and should be allowed to run things freely absent SAC coercion. At a time when the university’s budget is hurting, adding more bureaucracy could not be more backward.

Liberals should reject the plan because it creates a mechanism capable of discriminating against particular groups. The proposed policy states that “[r]egistered organizations are those that are consistent with the mission and culture of the University.” In other words, any group that is deemed outside of the mainstream culture could be targeted for termination. Why is this necessary?

It isn’t, unless the Student Activities Center plans to take an authoritarian role and to discriminate against groups it or university officials don’t like. If the Student Activities Center wants this power, it will retain the language used in its policy draft that allows it to do so. Simply saying out loud that the policy will not be used for such purposes is meaningless when the policy itself indicates otherwise.

Want to manage your own group as only you and your peers know best? Oppose this policy. Want a university and world with less bureaucracy and regulation? Oppose this policy. Want a university with less power to discriminate against students? Oppose this policy.

There are some problems with certain student organizations regarding leadership, funding, etc., but that doesn’t mean that any response is good. This policy leaves much to be desired and will create more problems than it solves.

The Student Activities Center is holding an open forum from noon to 1 p.m. Monday to discuss the proposed policy in the Gallery Room of the Memorial Union. Go and be heard.