2008 Woodie Awards
Should the SGA be abolished?
Matthew Peterson
Contributing Writer
Issue date: 4/7/08 Section: Opinion
Although surely the SGA has done many corrupt things - using everyone's money to print football petitions, for one - it would be ridiculous to claim that such things in and of themselves necessitate a dissolution of the organization.
Of course, reforms could theoretically correct those problems. The injustices of the SGA, however, arise from its nature and cannot be reformed away. Everyone who comes to the University is forced to pay part of his or her student activity fee directly to the SGA, but the money only goes to select constituencies and can only go to those select people.
One of the SGA's major functions is to disperse money to clubs and organizations on campus, while those who choose not to be in those organizations are left out. How is it right to take money from one of those people to pay for another person's club? If the club's members care about it enough, they should foot the bill instead of forcing people who are entirely unconcerned with it to do so.
If no one in the club can afford to pay, why should someone else be forced to make up the difference? It's their money, and they should have the choice of giving it to clubs they want to support, not giving it to those they don't want to, or simply not giving it to any of them at all.
What expenditure that the SGA could make would not serve a select constituency? The parties they throw only serve the people who go to them, not those who cannot afford to miss a night of work or have kids to take care of. The Pavilion they built also exclusively serves those who have the time to use it, leaving out those who can hardly scrape together time to come to night classes. If someone wants a pavilion, he or she should pay for it. If someone wants to go to a party, he or she should pay for it. Those who can't or simply don't want to use the service shouldn't be forced to pay more for their education to accommodate those who do.
No matter how desirable the end -- diversity of clubs on campus, allowing smaller clubs to recruit -- it cannot justify the means. People deserve the opportunity to come to this school without being forced to pay for things which in no way benefit them, especially considering many of them have been forced to pay for this school through taxes their entire lives. No one should have to pay for clubs he or she doesn't want to participate in to enjoy the benefits of his or her tax dollars.
Of course, reforms could theoretically correct those problems. The injustices of the SGA, however, arise from its nature and cannot be reformed away. Everyone who comes to the University is forced to pay part of his or her student activity fee directly to the SGA, but the money only goes to select constituencies and can only go to those select people.
One of the SGA's major functions is to disperse money to clubs and organizations on campus, while those who choose not to be in those organizations are left out. How is it right to take money from one of those people to pay for another person's club? If the club's members care about it enough, they should foot the bill instead of forcing people who are entirely unconcerned with it to do so.
If no one in the club can afford to pay, why should someone else be forced to make up the difference? It's their money, and they should have the choice of giving it to clubs they want to support, not giving it to those they don't want to, or simply not giving it to any of them at all.
What expenditure that the SGA could make would not serve a select constituency? The parties they throw only serve the people who go to them, not those who cannot afford to miss a night of work or have kids to take care of. The Pavilion they built also exclusively serves those who have the time to use it, leaving out those who can hardly scrape together time to come to night classes. If someone wants a pavilion, he or she should pay for it. If someone wants to go to a party, he or she should pay for it. Those who can't or simply don't want to use the service shouldn't be forced to pay more for their education to accommodate those who do.
No matter how desirable the end -- diversity of clubs on campus, allowing smaller clubs to recruit -- it cannot justify the means. People deserve the opportunity to come to this school without being forced to pay for things which in no way benefit them, especially considering many of them have been forced to pay for this school through taxes their entire lives. No one should have to pay for clubs he or she doesn't want to participate in to enjoy the benefits of his or her tax dollars.
Be the first to comment on this story