Benjamin Studenski, in his cleverly rhetorical letter of Nov. 12 makes several arguments against being “forced” to fund groups with which he disagrees.

He seems to think the motivation for insisting upon allocating student funds by representational government is “worrying over what will happen if people make their own decisions.”

In this, he conveniently ignores the fact that we DO make those decisions: No one forces us to attend this university, and no one forces us to vote for the candidates for which we vote.

Yet this isn’t enough for him. He wishes to wield dictatorial powers over what student government does with his student fees (a part of the price for attending this university). Those fees, once paid, are no longer his to control.

To compound his error, he attempts to invoke some sort of moral logic for his position by equating it with conscientious objection.

In this, he carries the reasoning of conscientious objection to an extreme and simultaneously belittles it.

Would Mr. Studenski be willing to see his friends and family enslaved or killed, or pay the ultimate price himself, rather than fund these organizations? THAT is what defines conscientious objection and what distinguishes it from his application. It is NOT reasonable to use it as a moral excuse for avoiding any societal obligations one doesn’t like, even for religious reasons. Nor is it logical to use it as moral grounds for opting out of student government funding allocations.

He may defend his position by claiming that he would honestly be willing to see any organizations he’s in favor of receive less funding, or even be zero-funded, as a consequence of a check-off system.

His assertion that his desires would have little consequence since most people wouldn’t participate in a check-off system is a matter of opinion. I’m of the opposing view that groups representing very unpopular/controversial positions would find it much more difficult to get funding in such a system.

Hence, his “protecting the viewpoints of this minority” is nothing of the kind.

Instead of the existing system, Mr. Studenski would effectively create a “mob rule” framework wherein one minority could have its viewpoints suppressed by another, or worse: Completely silenced by the majority.

Jonathan Williams

Senior

Electrical engineering