The university administration is considering a “check-off” concept that would allow students to check-off what campus groups they want funded on their U-bill.

The legal department of the university (aka Paul Tanaka) will likely suggest that this is necessary to avoid lawsuits initiated by disgruntled students who do not wish to personally underwrite so-called “political causes.”

This presents several problems, including the elimination of due process for groups that currently exist and the possibility that unique albeit unpopular ones will never exist.

If I don’t like the way the university spends tuition or fees, it isn’t fair to others or society as a whole for me to refuse payment.

And my fee dollars aren’t mine anymore after they leave my pocket.

They’re a contribution to university citizenship.

It is my responsibility to pay but also my right to engage in the democratic process of student government if I so desire.

Unfortunately, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, three law students wanted to stifle the freedom of speech, association and assembly of nearly 20 organizations with which they disagreed.

Instead of participating in the democratic selection of funding priorities through student government, these students sued and argued that they had rights to the pool of money that funded the women’s center, LGBT student organizations and Amnesty International.

UW Dean of Students Mary Rouse noted that “clearly this will result in a decrease in the number of student organizations at the UW.”

UW fought the lawsuit instead of caving in, as should Iowa State University.

But here, no one has even filed a lawsuit and potential changes are being considered.

And some political experts say fighting these arguments wouldn’t be hard.

According to the Badger Herald, UW constitutional expert Dr. Donald Downs said the court’s decision was weak and may be overturned in an appeal.

Yet, Blue Suit Tanaka and his Band of Wilting Violets are already considering radical changes to the student fees system in anticipation of a lawsuit that does not exist.

Tanaka may very well advise student leaders on the fees committee (even though he clearly represents the interests of the university and not student government) that such changes must be enacted even though no law requires them and no one else is asking for the changes.

ISU has a responsibility to fight this check-off trend tooth and nail, before it absolves itself from the responsibility to provide a rich and diverse learning community for students.

For under-represented students and organizations, this is nothing short of a fight to the finish.

---

David Cmelik

Graduate student

Business