Pioneer LogLewis & Clark College’s Student-Run Newspaper

Letters to the Editor: 4/16/10

April 16, 2010

Rationale for student organization budget requires explanation and transparency

Much can be said about the outcome of this year’s budgeting process and the reactions that have followed. Some clubs are angry because they do not feel that they were awarded enough money. Other people are angry because a few organizations have received substantial boosts in funding, increases which some feel are undeserved. Rather than focusing on the minute details of who got what, I would like to focus on what I see as a more serious problem underlying all of this: that of transparency.

In reviewing the minutes and deliberations of SOC, it is difficult to discern what logic governs the disbursement of budgets to clubs. The minutes only describe yes or no votes, what items were funded, and the motions that accompanied votes. Only in a few rare instances is debate raised. The minutes yield no information that wasn’t already available to the club members.
This raises two considerable difficulties. First of all, if there is an issue with a club’s budget, there is no way that club members can know of this and correct it in the appeals process or in future years. Secondly, it makes the decisions seem arbitrary. I am perfectly willing to accept that certain items on my budget cannot be funded due to limited funds, but the lack of explanation gives me no reason to accept the decision civilly. Furthermore, when this is accompanied by large increases in funding for activities congress or student government boards, it makes it seem as though these funding decisions come at the expense of student groups.

Increased transparency in deliberations and a justification, even a summary one, would go a long way in smoothing these kinds of disputes over.

Zeb Larson

College of Arts and Sciences

Class of 2010

 

The Student Organizations Committee made tough decisions well

As Student Organizations Coordinator, I feel that some groups that are unhappy with their allocations have misrepresented the role of ASLC and the Student Organizations Committee. Yes, your group didn’t get everything it asked for, because almost 80 organizations applied for funding this year. We had more people than ever looking for bigger slices of a pie that stayed the same size, and for the most part, every group got a piece. The problem is that many are still pretty hungry.

The Committee has to be both sensitive and realistic when allocating funds because giving money to one group necessarily means withholding it from another. That said, committee members are a brave lot who make some of the hardest decisions on campus.

To suggest that the budgeting process was used as a way to punish STAND for its perceived anti-Administration behavior during the school year is both offensive and absurd. The Administration purposely has no power in the budgeting process. The students on the committee make all the decisions regarding our money, and these accusations unfairly call into question their integrity. Check the minutes. No one said anything about using the allocation process to extract revenge on behalf of the Administration.

So please, respect our efforts. You are more than welcome to disagree with your allotment, but don’t try to blame it on the alleged biases of the Student Organizations Committee. We’ve all seen firsthand the fantastic events that our clubs and organizations put on, and it’s just plain wrong to think that students would maliciously or arbitrarily cut funding for any of them. I’m disappointed that some people believe their peers to be capable of such unwarranted hostility and I urge you to rethink your accusations. And if you’re still upset, appeal!

Lyndsey Romick

Student Organizations Coordinator

Class of 2012

 

Poster creator speaks out, brings his intent and identity to light

I’m writing about the “flier incident” from earlier this semester. I created the posters. I didn’t come out sooner because of pressure from the administration to remain anonymous, and would have rather had open, academic discussion from the start. Now, in light of recent restrictions to free speech on campus, I am compelled to speak up. My posters were not racist. They were done to satirize and critique another set of posters advertising for the Haka (which I fully support), because as somebody who identifies as an indigenous person, I was offended by what I saw in the posters as the misappropriation of a native culture. Here is what I did: the Haka posters advertised for students to “become Maori warriors.” I realized that this type of speech was dangerous, because Maori people have a history of repression in the U.S. for entertainment (Chicago World’s Fair), and that if you changed “Maori” to “African” or “black,” people would recognize it as inappropriate and offensive. I put them alongside the Haka posters to highlight this fact, along with pictures from U.S. history dealing with racism and civil rights. I was commenting on racism, and I was labeled a racist. The problem is now that my permanent record says I am guilty of racist speech, which blackballs me from any graduate schools or activist jobs. The administration is not letting me appeal, despite the fact that school policy states that hate speech must be motivated by intent. Talking about racism DOES NOT make you racist—now, even professors are telling me that they’re afraid to speak or make posters advertising classes because of how the administration has acted. Freedom of speech is dead at LC while racism rages on—except that now we can’t talk about it.

Adrian Guerro

College of Arts and Sciences

Class of 2012

 

Candidate endorsement by PioLog is unprofessional

I find it extremely unprofessional that the PioLog endorsed a candidate for the 2010 ASLC Elections. I grant that many other news sources in the past have endorsed candidates. In the 2008 Presidential Election, The New York Times endorsed Barack Obama and Fox News endorsed John McCain. Yet, in the United States of America, there are a multitude of news sources that the public can access; Lewis & Clark College supports only one news source. How can this foster a healthy and democratic form of government when the only published news media endorses a candidate, knowing the impossibility of another news source offering a different opinion? The PioLog is supposed to function as an unbiased news source that presents all possible angles and interests of the differing candidates so that Lewis & Clark students can make their own decisions.
I believe the centerfold VOTE article fully embodied the appropriate route for the PioLog to express its view. Had the PioLog left it at this, I would have no “beef,” yet I believe it went beyond its acceptable role by endorsing a candidate. This is not meant in any way to diminish the results of the election, because they are just and final. I would only hope that in the future the PioLog would avoid engaging in such practices and continue along the lines of an unbiased media group. The PioLog is aptly capable of doing so and has clearly demonstrated this vis-a-vis the VOTE article. 

Zac Hixson

College of Arts and Sciences

Class of 2010