University of Virginia Library

Double Standard

It is unclear why it is necessary
to deny funds to a publication such
as the Weekly or a right-wing paper
when students and the entire
readership are clearly and
unquestionably put on notice that a
certain outlook is maintained and
will be reflected in the articles. So
what if the Weekly relies entirely
on a sort of editorial-personal
journalism model? Surely no one is
being misled as to that fact.

There is a dual standard that
could be adopted by the Board that
would be both readily applied and
more consistent with the desire to
have widespread information and
opinion exchange, presently
hindered by the Board's policy.

Initially, funds should be denied
to any group whose purpose is the
elections of candidates on any level,
national, local or University, or
which engages in and would use
student money to lobby for specific
legislation. The prohibition should
operate to bar funds for efforts to
directly affect the outcome of the
political process. Student Council
itself might in fact by guilty of
violating this proposed standard.

Secondly, and here is the
distinction between the Board's
standard and the proposed one:
Publications or other
communications media with First

Amendment protections, unless
published by groups denied funds
under the first category, would as a
general rule be entitled to funds.
Only in the clear absence of value
as news, information, or opinion
sources would a denial result.

"Absence of value" would be
determined by several criterion
including, but not exclusively,
relevance to the University
community and representation of
views not otherwise available. It is
presumed that no publication
would easily fall within the
penumbra of valueless activity.