'The Red and Blue' funding cuts spark outrage, protests

Emotion and controversy have continued to mount since the Student Activities Council revoked The Red and Blue's full membership status and rescinded all of the campus publication's funding Monday night. The decision prompted two student groups to withdraw their SAC membership last night to protest SAC's refusal to revoke funding for all other politically oriented groups. Newman Council officers, after announcing their withdrawal from SAC, called the body's actions "discriminatory" and "heavy-handed." PennWatch SAC representative and Wharton sophomore Jon Brightbill said his organization also withdrew from SAC, adding that SAC's precedent of not funding The Red and Blue was not followed through by examining other political groups. "This kind of hypocricy is atrocious and reprehensible," Brightbill said. He also said he encourages other groups to withdraw from SAC in protest. "Until measures are implemented to ensure equality and freedom for all our campus and within [SAC], Newman Council will not be a member," Newman Council President and College senior Jeremy Chiappetta said. And as a result of Monday night's meeting, The Red and Blue Editor-in-Chief Christopher Robbins said the magazine has obtained pro bono legal counsel from the Los Angeles–based Individual Rights Foundation. He said Monday that he has not "ruled out" suing the University and SAC. Associate Vice Provost for University Life Larry Moneta responded to the controversy last night by saying that although the University respects student government procedures, the preservation of free and open expression remains an "absolute" for the University. Students have criticized SAC's handling of the issue on many different grounds -- one of which is that SAC's Finance Committee, which usually makes recommendations on all funding issues, remained silent on whether to fund The Red and Blue's request for $11,194. The Red and Blue Editorials Editor and College junior Thor Halvorssen said this was the first time SAC Finance failed to make a recommendation on a funding issue. SAC Finance Chairperson David Shapiro said his committee wanted to leave the decision to the general membership because the issues involved were too controversial and therefore "best decided by the body." All other funding issues were approved in a blanket motion, after which followed a heated, although abrupt, debate on the campus magazine's funding. The Red and Blue editors said they were unable to defend themselves during the meeting, citing motions to close debate and quickly adjourn the meeting as attempts to silence them. "We have been belittled," Halvorssen said. "We can see, we can hear, but we cannot speak. We cannot publish." SAC representatives first questioned The Red and Blue's status because of SAC's policy of refusing to fund groups of a political nature. Brightbill first moved to vote on the budget on a line-item basis. But he said his motion was defeated because the body had already made up its mind. "People against The Red and Blue realized that if they broke [the budget] down, it would get some money," he said. "The whole plan was just to defeat [the magazine's funding]." In fact, PennPAC SAC representative Steven Ebert, a College junior, said at the meeting Monday night that the body was "just wasting our time deciding how to divide up the money for a group we were going to vote against anyway." College junior and Counterparts SAC representative Graham Robinson then motioned to give the publication restricted recognition status, which would end any possible funding for the magazine. This motion was later approved by a 47-21 vote, with 35 abstentions. "I think SAC should be going out and defunding all groups that have a political agenda -- and there are several," Robinson said, adding that he made the motion simply because the publication was a political one, not because of the magazine's views. But this too has become a point of contention since some SAC members feel the body made its decision based on The Red and Blue's perceived political stance. "The only reason their funding got nixed is because they have a conservative political slant, as opposed to a liberal one," Brightbill said. Black Student League SAC representative Lashanta Johnson, an Engineering sophomore, said she voted against funding the magazine because of the staunchly conservative articles it has printed. "They shouldn't be surprised that students aren't going to want to fund any publication that supports such views," Johnson said Monday, citing Wharton junior Jeremy Hildreth's controversial article on U.S. involvement in Haiti that appeared in The Red and Blue's last issue. Chiappetta said the fact that SAC even considered cutting the magazine's funding because of its views indicates that the body is "a far cry from being a democracy." Robinson said representatives who voted in favor of rescinding funding because of The Red and Blue's content were also acknowledging the political nature of the magazine. Controversy also followed when Brightbill proposed that SAC form a task force to analyze every group's political affiliation and involvement. "My natural reaction was that any group with a political slant needed to be kicked out," he said. But SAC Finance members said they always consider these issues. "Finance looks at every single request for political or religious ideologies," Shapiro said. Student leaders have become polarized over the issue. "It's a real stretch to call them a political organization," said College junior Mike Nadel, a former SAC Finance representative and Daily Pennsylvanian columnist. But Rob Faunce, co-chairperson of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Alliance said the vote was not even about whether the magazine is political. "They have a right to exist," the College senior said. "They just don't have a right to our dollars." But Brightbill said many campus groups, such as the LGBA, the United Minorities Council and the Black Student League, are clearly activist and have a political agenda. "I hope that some of these other political groups, and they know who they are, have the integrity to come forward and voluntarily restrict their funding," Brightbill said.