refute his claim that "no
student should have to support
organizations opposed to his
political or moral beliefs." Just
who is properly libertarian?
Under the fees system,
students are required to
contribute a certain amount of
money to the Student
Council's Activities Fund, which
the Council later parcels out to
student organizations. But
what assurance is there that the
end result is fair to everybody?
How can the Council judge
objectively which group is
more needy or worthy of
funds? Isn't it clear that,
indirectly, some students will
be subsidizing other students'
organizations?
Why, why does the money
have to go to the Council in
the first place? Is it because
some groups can't raise enough
funds on their own? And, if so,
is it right to force others most
of whom have their own
special groups (also, I'm sure,
in need of further funds) to
chip in?
It is unfortunate that the
dream of utopia must
sometimes be broken by the
bitter realization that
occasionally everything just
doesn't work out. But we must
finally face the fact that the
present system is nothing more
than planned inequity, forced
subsiding!!
Every student group must
vie more and more for a share
in the kitty, for the money
that may well make it or break
it. But, as the pressure on the
Council members themselves
grows, so, too, the risk becomes
greater that, increasingly,
self-interest and personal
preference will determine the
final gifts of that all-sustaining
money.
The solution can only be to
begin cutting back on the fees
from the very start! The recent
allocation to the Gay Student
Union of a paltry $45 is but
the focal point of a much more
significant issue. Mandatory
Student Fees must be
reformed.
John S. Buckley
Chairman
Young Americans
for Freedom
