A recent Daily article detailed the student fees process and spoke to eligibility for funding.

In the article, the naughty “p-word” came up politically. In this context, no definition for “political” was offered, but it was clear that the aptly described “fuzzy” definition transcended party affiliation and endorsement. That lack of definition — that fuzziness — is dangerous.

It’s dangerous because it can be twisted by anyone with a grudge or an axe to grind against a group or a student that thinks differently than the rest of us.

To distinguish organizations as “political” or “apolitical” is an arbitrary distinction based on our commonly held beliefs — those that have long since gone unquestioned — and those which we currently find questionable or objectionable. So far, the activities of two student organizations have been questioned as “political” in these pages.

What next? Will foreign language clubs be considered “political” during times of increased geopolitical tension?

Will member groups of International Student Council be sanctioned for “political” activities during observations of their respective national holidays?

Perhaps VEISHEA, which enjoys student fee support, will be forced to petition students in the future to defend its existence.

The ISU Veterinarian could publish an article on euthanasia and someone, somewhere, will find references therein, too closely related to the “Right to Die” campaign.

Will those activities be “political?” Of course, from our perspective, we may see such analogy as mere hyperbole — just an exaggeration. “It’ll never happen,” you might say.

And probably you’d be right, because those of us fortunate enough to hold popularly held beliefs and ideologies have the numbers in our favor. Others have an old, yellowed document.

Make no mistake. At the heart of this debate is a discussion of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms — and not in Chicago or Wisconsin, but here at Iowa State University. A tough decision lies ahead.

Continuing down this road will create a tyranny of the majority that will infringe upon the rights of those students who wish to express and organize themselves differently from the “norm.”

It’s a big mistake that will do a predictable disservice not only to students that are building organizations now, but those who will undoubtedly benefit from the divergence of ideas that result from freedom of assembly, press and association. It will rob needy, interesting and unique programs to pay for popular ones that go unquestioned.

Someone great once said that democracy is like making sausage. We all love to eat it, but it’s not a pretty sight in the making.

The predictable hand-wringing that students will experience in dealing with both sides of this issue is a necessary part of both learning communities and democracy — as is our exposure to the divergent ideas presented by a variety of student organizations.

---

David Cmelik

Graduate student

Business