Ben Shapiro Shapiro is a first-year philosophy student bringing reason to the masses. E-mail him at FrumFiddle@yahoo.com. Click Here for more articles by Ben Shapiro

These days it’s a wonderful thing to be a victim. As long as you’re a victim, you’re worthy of great rewards. The more you complain, the more cash you receive, even if it’s the hard-earned cash of people who don’t agree with your positions. It’s the normal, unaffiliated UC student who gets left holding the bag. In this case, you’re paying mandatory student fees to help fund student advocacy groups, no matter whether you agree or disagree with their policies.



Just as long as those SAGs fit into the current bylaws, your or your parents’ hard-earned money is going to fund groups that you may find despicable. Even if it’s only a tiny amount of money out of your tuition going to SAGs, it’s the message that counts. And the message stinks.

SAGs receive sponsorship from the Undergraduate Students Association Council as long as they represent students according to four criteria. They must contribute to the “empowerment of their community.” Sponsorship is granted on a “content-neutral” basis, except for the fact that current bylaws state as the second and third criteria: “SAGs must have been historically and currently disadvantaged, discriminated against” (http://students.asucla.ucla.edu/Documents/bylaws.html).

And this “underrepresentation” can be defined as a group which is, according to the fourth requirement, “currently underrepresented in one or more of the following areas: the student body, faculty, staff, and/or administration at UCLA.” This is a pretty broad restriction; it seems to eliminate no one except perhaps for straight white males.

Funding is “neutral” toward those groups that have “had it rough” in the past. This is comparable to saying that you will receive money no matter who you are as long as you deserve sympathy. In the words of USAC President Elizabeth Houston, “having that criteria stipulates that funding is inherently content-driven.” (“Council set to vote on SAG funding changes,” Daily Bruin, News, Feb. 27).

According to USAC, those groups which deserve the most sympathy are the African Student Union, the Asian Pacific Coalition, Samahang Pilipino, and MEChA. Together, these groups received 40 percent of funding – their total funding amounted to $35,560. This means that for all 20 SAGs on campus, $88,900 total was distributed.

Why should USAC’s judgment that a given SAG is worthy of sympathy enable that SAG to be sponsored by money from student fees? And even if policies are changed so that funding cannot be handed out on the basis of viewpoint, there is a huge flaw in the process. The proposed changes would allow all student-registered organizations to be eligible for funding if they have an advisor, a constitution and at least three members.

If student-funding must be maintained, then USAC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. USAC is currently debating whether to amend its bylaws. If it chooses to follow the Supreme Court decision in the Southworth v. University of Wisconsin case, then mandatory student fees would be legal if the money is distributed without regard to content. If bylaws are changed to follow the letter of that decision, then any student-registered group can be granted university sponsorship if the they have the three requisites.

The choice between impartial funding of SAGs and content-driven funding of SAGs is unnecessary. USAC only has to take a very simple step. All USAC must do is to stop requiring student fees for the purpose of funding SAGs. Will USAC be ripped by the SAGs? Of course, but sometimes the most realistic solution to a problem is the most difficult. What a rational concept: people who pay tuition actually get to avoid funding groups with which they disagree. Forced charity is just a plain bad idea.

For example, MEChA’s statement of purpose says: “MEChA is a multifunctional Chicana/o nationalist organization that concentrates on political, social, educational, and cultural issues that pertain to the Chicana/o community.” It just so happens that many people on the UCLA campus are not members of the Chicana/o community. Of these people whom MEChA does not represent, many disagree with MEChA’s policies, one of which calls for the repeal of SP-1 and SP-2. Why should those people who are not represented by MEChA and disagree with MEChA’s policies have to fund them?

For every student group there are those who disagree with its policies. Why should dissenters have to pay for the upkeep of those SAGs? It used to be that when someone wanted to effect changes in the world, they would go out and do it the honest way – work hard, gather others who felt the same way, pool their resources and energy and lobby to make a difference. This is no longer the case.

Now, groups that are interested in “advocating” a certain viewpoint can merely claim “underrepresentation,” fill out the papers, and if approved, go pick up their check at the USAC office – a check funded with the money of many who disagree with that SAG’s policies.

Basing funding on any such subjective criteria as victim status only propagates a victim mentality. If any group can state that its past has been tough and be funded without any work on its part, then there is a great incentive to claim victimization.

But this is a self-defeating method. If people want to overcome hardships, they must learn to do so not from handouts, but from learning self-reliance. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X both advocated freedom – freedom from handouts and freedom to be independent and equal to other men. In the words of Anwar al-Sadat, former president of Egypt, “Only when he has ceased to need things can a man truly be his own master and so really exist.”

Student advocacy groups are important. They represent the views of the “underrepresented” at UCLA. But those groups that are not “underrepresented” or have not been “discriminated against” in the past are then excluded from USAC funding. And, if all groups are allowed funding, where can USAC draw the line?

The only way to fix the problem is to let the SAGs do their own work. Let them raise funds from their constituents. Let the money that goes to put out their flyers come from the pockets of those who agree with them.

Diversity can be maintained, but it should not be by the wallets of those who hold different opinions from those advocated by a given SAG. SAGs were instituted to empower the constituencies of the groups. Now SAGs should empower UCLA students with the ability to give their money to the groups they choose.