There was exactly one sentence of Jen Chaquette and Kanisha Parthasarathy’s article that was relevant to the topic at hand:
“Were the moratorium to be lifted now, every group’s budget would have to be reduced to a level that would make it impossible for SAC to fund even their primary mission.”
However, this is merely asserted, as seems to be the modus operandi of the Student Activities Council. It doesn’t pass a “sniff test” either, as the groups seeking recognition are small, non-performing arts groups who would not require more than a few hundred dollars each per year. This is not a “multifaceted” or “complex” issue. Less money is available. SAC can either give out less money across the board or disenfranchise the many students who have no say in the matter.
SAC Exec has repeatedly made the claim that there is some reason the former solution is untenable, yet they offer us no evidence toward that claim.
I’m not denying that there is a fiscal problem. And I’m not claiming that budget cuts across the board are something we should be happy about. The situation is unfortunate, and there’s no good answer — but even in a bad situation there are better and worse solutions.
If we are to believe SAC’s claims about the necessity of the moratorium, we should have hard evidence to that effect, not merely the assurances of those in power. If they cannot or will not provide that, then perhaps it is time to start thinking about SAC’s successor.
Seth Koren is a College and Wharton junior. His email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.Comments powered by Disqus
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.