Those student fees offer a lesson in democracy
Issue date: 11/16/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Remember the phrase "taxation without representation?"
That's in a nutshell what's happening with the student activities budget, but it'd also be an over-simplification of why there isn't more widespread student input on the budget.
It'd be easy to demonize Rich Watters and Dr. Raymond Jones for whatever reason you can think of, but it'd also be wrong.
The problem with the student activities budget isn't the money itself, what it's used for, or really even how the money is spent. The problem is why the money exists in the first place.
In Notre Dame's context, $193,000 raised in student activities fees from every student is not chump change. That's hard-earned cash that could be used to boost faculty's pay or to improve maintenance around the campus. Instead, that money is collected along with tuition and given directly back to the students as an expensive tutorial on democracy.
One of the key reasons why Associated Students even exists is because it's a real-world laboratory of American democracy, and a critical experiment is taxation with representation. Opinions are supposed to clash, especially so when it comes to fiscal matters.
It's disappointing to see a virtually arbitrary and unclear form of distributing funds. Only in Articles Three and Seven in the Associated Students' constitution are passing mentions made towards funding.
The U.S .Constitution makes direct mention of taxes and revenue in Article One, Sections 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It should be pretty obvious what was on the framers' minds.A constitutional amendment needs to exist detailing clearly how money should be requested and spent.
A Students' Ways and Means Committee should exist, composed solely of students. Any and all funding requests go through them first before they're passed onto the general body for a final vote.
Once that system's set, the students and the faculty should make every effort to make it work. The most Watters or Jones should do is moderate any possible conflicts and sign the check over to the Associated Students' treasurer.
Democracy's a wonderful system, but it's also messy and fraught with drama. Watters and Jones ought to guide students through the strife rather than avoid it outright.
What's the point of Associated Students if a critical power rests largely with Watters and Jones, two people with good intentions? The students don't learn anything because they have no real emotional investment in the outcome.
If emotions run high, it should be left to the students to fix the mess at the end of the day. If people have their feelings hurt, so be it.
Those students who experience that pain and deal with the politics will understand something only described in textbooks or seen on TV - just how taxes are really divvied up and spent in a democracy.
That's in a nutshell what's happening with the student activities budget, but it'd also be an over-simplification of why there isn't more widespread student input on the budget.
It'd be easy to demonize Rich Watters and Dr. Raymond Jones for whatever reason you can think of, but it'd also be wrong.
The problem with the student activities budget isn't the money itself, what it's used for, or really even how the money is spent. The problem is why the money exists in the first place.
In Notre Dame's context, $193,000 raised in student activities fees from every student is not chump change. That's hard-earned cash that could be used to boost faculty's pay or to improve maintenance around the campus. Instead, that money is collected along with tuition and given directly back to the students as an expensive tutorial on democracy.
One of the key reasons why Associated Students even exists is because it's a real-world laboratory of American democracy, and a critical experiment is taxation with representation. Opinions are supposed to clash, especially so when it comes to fiscal matters.
It's disappointing to see a virtually arbitrary and unclear form of distributing funds. Only in Articles Three and Seven in the Associated Students' constitution are passing mentions made towards funding.
The U.S .Constitution makes direct mention of taxes and revenue in Article One, Sections 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It should be pretty obvious what was on the framers' minds.A constitutional amendment needs to exist detailing clearly how money should be requested and spent.
A Students' Ways and Means Committee should exist, composed solely of students. Any and all funding requests go through them first before they're passed onto the general body for a final vote.
Once that system's set, the students and the faculty should make every effort to make it work. The most Watters or Jones should do is moderate any possible conflicts and sign the check over to the Associated Students' treasurer.
Democracy's a wonderful system, but it's also messy and fraught with drama. Watters and Jones ought to guide students through the strife rather than avoid it outright.
What's the point of Associated Students if a critical power rests largely with Watters and Jones, two people with good intentions? The students don't learn anything because they have no real emotional investment in the outcome.
If emotions run high, it should be left to the students to fix the mess at the end of the day. If people have their feelings hurt, so be it.
Those students who experience that pain and deal with the politics will understand something only described in textbooks or seen on TV - just how taxes are really divvied up and spent in a democracy.
Be the first to comment on this story