The use of mandatory student activities fees for student government political activity has recently been cause for the UC Office of the President to introduce several changes to existing student fee policy. Questions arose in UCOP regarding the appropriateness of such activity after the Graduate Assembly at UC Berkeley funded a No on Proposition 54 campaign with student fees in October 2003. A draft of a revised student fee policy was submitted to each UC campus during fall quarter for comment, and the University of California will finalize it in spring 2004. While the draft makes some improvements in the clarity of specific policies, it unduly restricts student governments in several respects.
UCOP claims that since student governments are “official units” of the university, they cannot use university resources to fund political activity. This claim neglects the role of student governments as representative bodies that must be afforded the right to lobby on behalf of students. Student governments, however, should lobby only for appropriate causes that affect students and higher education.
The draft proposal reinforces that funds from student fees be allocated to registered campus organizations on a viewpoint neutral basis, and that off-campus activities and organizations be eligible for funding. The draft correctly ensures registered campus organizations the right to engage in a broad range of activities, and includes language that encourages fund allocation to hinge on such important factors as size and activity — not political viewpoint. The draft also acknowledges the educational (if not politically beneficial) role of off-campus student activities and organizations, like the UC Student Association, in advancing the interests of students.
While UCOP’s proposed restrictions on student government activity are unwarranted, it has valid concerns for the changes proposed in the recent draft. Allowing UC student governments to advocate — with resources provided by student fees — on behalf of any ballot or candidates it deems necessary implies that the student government is truly representing the best interests of its constituency.
Accepting this as a truth — that the A.S. Council, for example, is representative of undergraduates because 27 percent of the student body shows up to the polls once a year to elect their advocates — is to ignore the many flaws that have regularly been a part of UCSD politics. The A.S. Council is elected by a relatively small percentage of students that, by and large, know very little of the candidates’ stances or voting history. A more powerful check needs to be held by constituents, forcing government leaders to be more accountable with their votes and their proposals to advocate on behalf of external political issues with student fee monies.
In order to empower students with an increased ability to make decisions, the A.S. Council needs to reexamine (and reform) the relationship it has with its constituents. For example, the voting records of senators should be available if they are running in a later election. A student voter has a better idea as to what the candidate stands for if he or she is able to examine how the candidate voted on a certain item. Exposing these voting records makes for a greater debate during the election season and holds accountable the leaders who allocate student fees for their preferred events or projects.
For a student government to accept the responsibility of advocating on behalf of students, it must prove that it actually represents student interests by working toward a more involved and better educated electorate. While the A.S. Council and other student governments should be fighting to maintain a voice of advocacy in external affairs, effort should also be put forth toward ensuring its legitimacy as a truly representative authority.
