University of Virginia Library

SDS Receives $100 Allocation From Student Council

Weekly Receives Funds,
Anti-Draft Group Does Not

By Barry Levine
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Photo by Andy Stickney

Council Considers Allocation Requests And Appeals

Virginia Weekly, SDS, Virginia Research Institute Allocations Withstand Protests

Asking for educational information on
"racism, fascism, sexism, drug
information," the Students for a
Democratic Society once again has
received funds from the Student Council.

The $100 allocation, granted at the
Tuesday night meeting, was approved by
a roll call vote of 15-5. The heated
argument was marked by outbursts by
both the anti-and pro- SDS onlookers
that had gathered for the allocations.

Allocations Appeals

About 60 people attended in order to
appeal cuts in their organization's
allocation, or to protest the funds
received by certain groups. The groups
appealing cuts were the Glee Blue, The
Virginia Law Review, The Pep Band, and
Madison Hall. Students appeared to
protest grants for The Students for a
Democratic Society, The Virginia Weekly,
and The Virginia Research Institute.

The ordinary process for an allocation
of funds includes a preliminary hearing of
the Organizations and Publications
Committee, with the entire Council deciding
upon the committee's recommendations and
acting upon appeals. The O&P Committee is
composed of nine Council members. No
recommendation was made on the $700 request
of the Charlottesville Draft Resistance group,
pending action by the Council as a whole,
because the committee was unsure as to
whether organized resistance of the Selective
Service System should be financed by student
funds.

Request Granted

The Virginia Weekly received its request of
$3,200, and The Virginia Research, an
organization of faculty and students
investigating social conditions in the
Charlottesville area, received only $1800 of its
requested $2251.

An $49 allocation to SDS for similar
purposes last semester resulted in an injunction
by three law students, Sam Manly, Harry
Rayburn, and Brian Donato, preventing the
Council from giving the money on the rounds
that SDS was "politically-oriented." The
Student Activities Committee, which oversees
the allocation process ruled that funds could
not be given to "politically-oriented"
organizations.

Council secured ACLU attorney John Lowe
to represent them in court, but, because of
changes in the SDS constitution and
ambiguities in the definition of
"politically-oriented," the Council rescinded its
original grand with the understanding that the
matter would be considered when allocation
would be made in the spring.

Several Council members had said they felt
that the real issue was whether the Council was
to have control of the Student Activities Fee, as
well as what constituted a
"politically-oriented" organization. Since the
SAC said that the Council should define the
term itself, the definition of the Internal
Revenue Service, which states that a group
involved in electoral politics is political, had
been used. Reasoning that SDS was not directly
involved in the electoral procedure, the Council
had given the money to be used for
"educational purposed."

SDS Education

The new funds to SDS brought the three
complaining law students back to protest the
allocation. The debate raged anew as Vice
President Kevin Mannix asserted that SDS
"distributed literature on a wide variety of
subjects - including racism, sexism, fascism,
and (therefore) I consider them more as an
educational organization." Further debate by
several Council members reiterated the idea
that SAS was not directly concerned with
electoral politics, and therefore not
politically-oriented.

Opposition to the argument that SDS was
primarily an educational organization came
from both the protesting law students and
Council member Tom Gardner. The students
contended that SDS existed to present a certain
viewpoint concerning social problems and their
solution, and therefore was politically-oriented
even if it did not directly involve itself in
University politics.

Mr. Gardner, who is himself a member of
SDS, seemed to agree that the organization was
political, but not that it concerned itself with
electoral politics. He maintained, though, that
the reason the three law students protested the
allocation was not because SDS is political, but
because its politics disagrees with theirs.

"The issue we're discussion" he said, "is
these guys who are appealing are dealing with
objections to SDS politics. I disagree with the
political views of the Virginia Journal of
International Law, and with the Cavalier Daily,
and with the Virginia Law Review, because
they also represent a particular point of view,
that of maintaining the system. But we give
money to them. The protest is not that SDS is
political, but that its not their politics."

Mr. Mannix had earlier asserted that
literature concerning racism and fascism are
above partisan politics, but Mr. Gardener
disagreed. "When you come to racism and
fascism," he said, "there is no such thing as
non-political."

Mr. Donato, one of the protesting students,
contended that the allocation would be a
violation of his first amendment rights to
"present my own views." He questioned the
right of thy Council to grant student funds to
an organization presenting views that may be
objectionable to other students.

Several Council members disagreed, with
Tom Breslin of the Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences saying that "in a majoritorian
system, everybody cannot agree on all
decisions."