University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Fight Off Assault On SAF

By LARRY SABATO

(A third-year College
student, Mr. Sabato is
Chairman of the Organizations
and Publications
Committee–Ed.)

Students will be voting
today and tomorrow on
whether the Student Council
should be prohibited from
disbursing funds to any
organization which takes a
stand on political issues or
which undertakes to effect
political change.

I believe that it will be in
the best interests of all
students to defeat this
referendum. I urge its defeat
for two reasons:

1) The referendum does not
accomplish the stated purpose
of its sponsors.

2) The future right of
students to allocate their own
monies, and, indeed the very
future of the Student Activities
Fund, is in : more danger in
the courts and in the Board of
Visitors than anyone suspects.
An affirmative vote on this
highly ambiguous referendum
would result in the termination
of that right.

To the first point, the
referendum's sponsors insist
that one can easily distinguish
those organizations which the
referendum affects. The
original purpose was to
overturn Council's decision to
join the National Student
Lobby (NSL) and National
Student Association (NSA).

The referendum, however,
does not say this; the
referendum gives us no
discernible guideline for the
allocation of student funds.
Don't The Cavalier Daily, the
radio stations, Student
Council, and many other
organizations take stands on
political issues? The sponsors
claim these groups are not
included, but on what basis?
Their intentions? We are not
voting on their intentions; we
are voting on the statement as
it reads.

To the second point, the
Student Activities Fund (SAF)
is in trouble at this University.
Some individuals who are
strongly supporting this
referendum favor the abolition
of the Student Activities Fee,
despite the fact that this move
would destroy most major
student organizations on the
grounds. These individuals have
taken the University to court
on the Virginia Weekly
allocation, and should the Gay
Student Union be funded, we
will probably find ourselves in
court again.

This assault on the SAF will
be aided by an affirmative vote
on this referendum; because of
its ambiguity, these individuals
can claim that students have
shown a lack of support for the
SAF. And regardless of the
intentions of the sponsors, this
can prove a cogent argument in
court or before the Board of
Visitors.

I want to make it clear that
Tom Sansonetti is not one of
these individuals. Tom
supports the SAF and is a very
responsible member of the
O&P Committee. Tom
sincerely opposes the NSA and
NSL allocations, and, had the
referendum restricted itself to
those specific allocations, we
could have addressed ourselves
to those two issues, as Tom
had intended.

But that, unfortunately, is
not the case. We are faced with
a referendum which is highly
ambiguous and does not
convey the intentions of the
sponsors. We are faced with a
referendum that could result in
the abolition of the student
right to distribute student
activity money. Those of us
who want to see the SAF
preserved also want to hear
student opinion on the
allocations process. If approved
by Council, this will be
accomplished by a February
student poll.

Please take these factors
into account. Vote "No" on
the referendum.