COLUMN: Cashing in the system

From J. Christopher Robbins' "Don't Tread on Me," Fall '96 From J. Christopher Robbins' "Don't Tread on Me," Fall '96Vouchers are the only fairFrom J. Christopher Robbins' "Don't Tread on Me," Fall '96Vouchers are the only fairway to allocate student funds. From J. Christopher Robbins' "Don't Tread on Me," Fall '96Vouchers are the only fairway to allocate student funds. There are a few statements I suspect no Penn student has spoken or heard recently, such as: "Tuition here sure is a bargain," "Gee, the Quad grass looks so healthy," "My Law (or Social Work) professor is a registered Republican," and "Gosh, students are lucky to have the UA and SAC to represent their interests!" The Undergraduate Assembly and the Student Activities Council are characterized by deceit, hopeless pragmatism and plain stupidity. Worse yet, the scene is dominated by a clique of resume-builders and pseudo power-peddlers who have created an imposition our campus can no longer tolerate. I end my written silence on this subject by joining the passionate rebel call that has resounded for years: "Abolish student government!" Both SAC and the UA exist by the grace and mercy of students. Students pay a $1,674 "General Fee," from which the University allocates $874,000 to the UA. The UA then directs $535,572 to SAC, according to UA Treasurer Steve Schorr. That's our money. Nevertheless, despite our incontestable interest, members of both organizations serve only themselves. Their policies and procedures are often seriously flawed, and the groups as a whole are frequently unfair, unethical and dishonest. Some members resemble caricatures of the real-life, crooked politicians they may someday become. A few examples: Josh Rockoff, a UA member, two weeks ago told me he planned "to use sensitive information about Rodin's personal driver, Donald Gaines, to gain leverage" and raise money for an athletic center. Rockoff now denies making such a statement. David Shapiro, former chairperson of the now-defunct SAC Finance Committee, last semester tried to secure appropriations for selected student groups. His attempt failed when then-SAC Steering Chairperson Graham Robinson intervened. "It was an unbelievable violation of the spirit of student government and the trust which was put into him," Robinson recalls. And who can forget Dan Debicella, former chairperson of the UA, who last year deliberately falsified information, broke promises and lied to University Council about the UA's position on the infamous and ridiculous "minority seat" for the UMC on Council. Sadly, although there are honest, bright and committed members of both the UA and SAC, I could go on ad nauseam describing cases of fence-sitting, fraud, misappropriation and compromise. But there are other serious issues to address. Take SAC, for instance. No part of this group is popularly elected or appointed by the student body, but some mystical power gives SAC the authority to redistribute our money. This is simply indefensible. If as individuals, a University, or a society we espouse certain beliefs about liberty, freedom and "government based on consent," our microcosmic administrative institutions, including SAC, had better reflect the same values. Anything less is hypocritical. If legitimacy is a function of true representation, SAC, in the words of political theorist Lysander Spooner, is "a band of robbers, murders and thieves." Its leadership comes only at the behest of campus organizations, not by a vote of students as a whole. Perhaps that's why there's no accountability when meetings turn into carnivals, and when SAC depletes our money to help baby monk seals, fund Hawaiian luaus and procure strawberry-flavored prophylactics. Other times the body regresses into a lawless, aboriginal mob ready to follow any caprice, even if it means violating legal principles and common sense, as in the revocation of The Red and Blue's SAC recognition last spring. Elected, consensual, representative government can be necessary in moderation to protect our rights, but at a University such as ours, there is no need for a UA or a SAC. The current state of affairs is unpalatable. That people like David Shapiro, Dan Debicella and Josh Rockoff can have power over students and their money is revolting. Moreover, the very concept of a peer -- elected or not -- possessing a blank check to legislate, orchestrate or administrate against the will of an honest other is immoral. So let's put out the bastards! Or, at the very least, let's make a change that will bring justice and morality to this corrupted system. Unlike the many "career student politicians," I have a solution. It's a straightforward amendment to the UA Constitution: "WHEREAS, individual students pay a sum of money to fund student activities and enterprises, and WHEREAS students, by divesting themselves of this money have a compelling and indisputable interest in their funds, and WHEREAS, in a free society individuals reserve this interest for themselves and should be free to will or not to will their interests, money and property in any way they choose, BE IT RESOLVED: a system of vouchers shall be implemented." Vouchers, like the student money that they represent, would be completely transferable and flexible. We could cash them ourselves, or the treasurer of our favorite club or group could, with our permission, redeem them through the UA Treasurer for organizational use. When it comes to the administration of government, said statesman and economist Frederic Bastiat, there are but a few options: "That the few plunder the many. That everybody plunders everybody else. That nobody plunders anybody. Partial plunder, universal plunder, absence of plunder -- one must choose." I say we choose the latter.