SAC's contribution to political apathy

An article in The Daily Pennsylvanian last week pointed out that Penn is not as well-represented in Congress as some of our Ivy League peers. In fact, such statistics are part of the reason for the creation of the new Communication and Public Service program at the Annenberg School, which seeks to train Penn students for political work. However, other portions of our University embrace an anti-politics bias that prevents a richer political discourse on campus.

Many Americans seem to carry an attitude that politics is suffused with motives that are less than pure. While firefighters, forest rangers and military servicemen are seen as noble guardians of the public good, the professional politician is seen as wily and self-serving. And frankly, the anti-politics bias does not end with politicians. Politics is frequently presented as so petty and divisive that we must segregate it to keep the other aspects of our lives free from the havoc it wreaks.

Perhaps this bias exists because the ugly side of politics is the easiest to see. For example, five men from my hometown of Milwaukee have recently been charged with slashing tires on vans that local Republicans had planned to use to get out the vote in last November's election, and here at Penn deceptive flyers were circulated around campus to suppress student voter turnout.

However, just because the least attractive facets of politics are the most visible does not mean that they are the most significant. In truth, politics and public policy permeate every aspect of our lives. You receive financial assistance to go to Penn? You work in a research lab on campus? You take the Blue Line to go to Center City on weekends? You like breathing clean air when you go outside? National, state and local policies -- the work of the very politicians who everyone loves to hate -- affect these aspects of our collegiate lives and many more besides.

Truth be told, politics was at the heart of Ben Franklin's ideal of a practical university. Our University's founder famously declared, "May the first principles of sound politicks be fix'd in the minds of youth." This is the work not just of the Political Science Department, nor even just the campus partisan clubs. Just as politics touches all aspects of our lives, all types of clubs should be able to express an opinion on the issues of the day that affect their interests and be able to do so without threats of losing their funding. However, the principles of free speech and inclusion are under attack by current Student Activities Council rules.

SAC Executive Committee funding policies do not simply prohibit funds from going to campus partisan organizations, as they probably should. The guidelines also specifically prohibit activity that is designed to "influence legislation," which conceivably includes anything from a petition signature drive to a demonstration on College Green. In practice, this policy discourages cooperation between non-partisan groups and more openly political organizations on matters of common concern.

In a letter to the editor, SAC Vice Chairman Philip Gommels defended SAC's funding policy: "Because a disproportionate number of organizations representing a certain viewpoint (i.e., groups with no counterpart) may arise, and because fairly funding groups according to their needs and projects may produce unfair inequality among the opposing views, SAC chooses to stay out of this funding block entirely."

Gommels makes a reasonable point, but it is still one with which I strongly disagree. Simply put, student groups should not be discriminated against in the distribution of funding just because they possess and express opinions on the public policy issues that affect them.

For example, minority groups should not be prevented from taking a stand on racial profiling and immigration policy, and performing arts groups should not be prevented from speaking out for free speech. Sure, if there's a group that endorses racial profiling, then their events should be funded too. But lack of opposing views -- or students organized to embrace those views -- should not be permitted to stifle those groups that do have strong beliefs and choose to express them.

There are a number ways to change this policy. SAC's Executive Committee could remove the "influence legislation" clause, continuing to prohibit funding for only more openly partisan groups. It could also specify that SAC-funded groups not put their funding in jeopardy by collaborating with other, non-SAC funded groups on particular activities.

One way or the other, changes must start with the SAC Executive Committee elections that are in only a few weeks' time. With these elections, student organizations have an opportunity to publicly oppose discrimination against political activity and recognize that politics touches each of our lives in ways too important to ignore.

Kevin Collins is a junior Political Science major from Milwaukee. ...And Justice For All appears on Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.