The Undergraduate Council of Students announced a proposal and subsequently ran an opinions column in The Herald yesterday ("UCS: Vote ‘yea' to UCS-UFB role amendment," Feb. 9) recommending a constitutional change that would give it the right to set its own budget, with the approval of the director of student activities. The Undergraduate Finance Board would like to urge a more reasoned look at the proposal and ask students to consider the true impact the change would have.
The UCS proposal would set UCS apart from every other student group on campus, whose budgets are determined by UFB. It's not surprising why they would want to do this. As chair of a large student organization myself, I'd relish the opportunity to set my own budget rather than petitioning UFB for funds. I'm sure it's a sentiment shared by many student leaders on campus. However, giving UCS this power, afforded to no other student organization, would have disastrous consequences for every undergraduate on campus.
The amendment has been put to a vote by all undergraduate students on MyCourses, and a two-thirds majority is necessary to ratify this change when the poll closes on Sunday. On behalf of UFB, and as a member of the student body, I strongly urge Brown students to vote "no" to the UCS proposal.
It's an unfortunate but eminently true fact that many groups on campus are underfunded. Theater productions operate on shoestring budgets. The Brown Band can barely travel to away games due to logistical expenses. Club sports scramble to cover their costs. Almost all students who are members of student groups have been through the experience of emailing dozens of departments asking for funding to cover the gaps that UFB can't afford to pay. Across the board, worthwhile projects and events go unrealized. This problem boils down to the very simple issue of too many needs and too few funds.
That is why UFB must make difficult decisions every week about how to most efficiently allocate the approximately $1.2 million student activity fund, which comprises a $178 fee paid by every undergraduate. The effect of UCS having nearly unchecked access to these funds before every other student group, at the most basic level, is to decrease the funds available for every other student organization. This would make UFB's already tough decisions even tougher and leave an even greater number of projects and events unfunded. While I do not deny the value of the work UCS does, I doubt it is sufficiently crucial to the lives of the student body that it be prioritized above the needs of every other student group, groups to which students actively choose to devote their time and effort.
UCS argues that its mission is to advocate and enact policies for the benefit of every Brown undergraduate. But such reasoning is not sufficient to differentiate UCS — in terms of impact on the student body — from many other groups. Many student groups funded by UFB reach thousands of students with their events — examples of this include the Special Events Committee's Candyland and Spring Carnival events and Brown Concert Agency's Spring Weekend concerts. Mid-size student groups bring countless speakers and academics to campus to address hundreds of students. Smaller groups each impact far fewer students, but few undergraduates can say they have never attended a student group event funded by UFB. These groups collectively impact the day-to-day life of students just as much as, if not more than, UCS. Hence, UCS's supposed impact on student lives hardly seems like justification to give it first access to funds from the student activity fee, when every dollar UCS allocates to itself is a dollar that will not be available for the events and activities students already value.
UCS argues that Brown's student government receives less funding than the student governments of other Ivy League schools. It cites the example of Dartmouth's UCS equivalent, which reportedly receives 21 times as much funding as UCS does. This is galling, not because of the magnitude of the disparity, but because of the degree of UCS's disingenuousness. The body to which the UCS opinions column refers comprises not only Dartmouth's UCS equivalent, but also SPEC and the Class Coordinating Board, both of which receive over $50,000 a year from UFB to develop programming for the student body. While I don't have access to Dartmouth's funding figures, I imagine when a more accurate comparison is made, the alleged disparity largely evaporates.
UCS wishes to establish itself as superior to all other student groups, but it doesn't defend why the benefits it provides to students warrant the new funding structure. By thinly veiling a gross expansion of its power, the council disregards the needs of every student who pays into the student activity fee, who will have to wait behind a UCS that will perpetually be in the front of the line for access to funding. This doesn't seem particularly fair to the rest of us.
Raaj Parekh '13 is an at-large representative for the UFB. UFB is available to answer any questions about the constitutional change and can be contacted at ufb.submissions@gmail.com.
