Money is the one concept that binds all of humanity together. You need money to buy groceries, hold events, or pay rent. At Penn, clubs need a lot of it. We use money to pay for caterers, pay for venues, and pay for equipment. Clubs used to have ample opportunities to receive said funds through fundraisers, funding boards, Student Allocations Commission budget, and sponsorships. Now, that’s all gone.
On Aug. 25, one day before Penn’s club fair, club leaders were called in for a mandatory meeting. The group consisting mostly of club treasurers was told without any warning that multiple funding boards were swallowed by the jaws of the Office of Student Affairs and SAC, recently rebranded from the Student Activities Council to the Student Allocations Commission, will be by far the largest funding resource. They were also told there will be no retroactive funding even though the first round of funds will only be doled out on Sept. 18.
Make no mistake, I don’t have a problem with OSA changing how the school wants to spend the money it has; that’s its right. However, what is disturbing is the rush with which this whole system was rolled out. What is concerning is how vague the new funding guidelines are. What is troubling is the expectation that clubs adapt to unclear rules without enough time, training, or support.
With a new system comes new funding guidelines. Starting this semester, funds will only be disseminated for “mission based” activities. What counts as mission based? Good question — nobody knows. How would it be judged? No idea. Essentially, every club will be in the dark about what qualifies as “mission based” until the next round. Do cultural dinners count as mission based? How about GBMs? If the food at GBMs can’t be funded but the food at cultural dinners can be, where is the line?
One could argue this isn’t a big issue. Even if OSA is changing its rules about funds, there are still alternative sources of funding like the Wharton Council, but the options are only less significant than SAC. Cultural clubs don’t have access to this luxury, and they stand to lose the most from this new funding jungle. Cultural clubs can only depend on the Asian Pacific Student Coalition and United Minorities Council, but both have limited budgets to work with and are already bending backwards to get everyone the help they need (hats off to them for that).
OSA noted on its website the four great challenges: a patchwork funding system with over 15 sources, a lack of central oversight, over 550 student organizations increasing demand, and unclaimed funding despite high demand. OSA may have solved the problems it laid out, but the solutions themselves created even more problems.
One key problem with the new funding regime set by OSA was the loss of welcome week. Without this age-old tradition, recruitment is going to take a hit, and with it, the principle of inclusivity. Many people have classes during the SAC Fair, so they can’t make it to each booth. Some people are just scared of walking up in broad daylight and striking up a conversation with random people they’ve never met before (I know I am). Scheduling or temporary personal issues shouldn’t be barriers to entry to participate in campus life.
Clubs holding events during welcome week make it a point not to charge ticket prices for their events. But if SAC funding doesn’t come through, they can’t do that anymore. To veer away from the threat of bankruptcy, dues have to be paid, and open events now have to become restricted affairs. Welcome week events often carry a heftier price tag because clubs are pulling out all their stops to showcase what they are all about. Yes, this also means they are really sticking their necks out for the cause of inclusivity.
Here at Penn, we already see ourselves as four different schools instead of one major University. Cultural clubs have been one of the few uniting areas. But these clubs inherently suffer from a positive externality problem. In the past, University funding has had a hand in fixing this market failure. But without continued financial support, these clubs will have to choose between their own iron triangle. They must pick between bridging divides, inclusivity, and keeping financial integrity.
Clubs were designed to be welcoming to all; OSA even makes it a mandatory requirement when clubs first register. But by severely hampering funding sources, OSA is doing what it precisely set out to prevent — making clubs even more exclusive.
Penn should never be a place where one’s liquidity and personality dispositions hamper them from finding a home here; clubs need cavalry, but there seems to be none coming.
EDEN LIU is a College sophomore from Taipei, Taiwan studying philosophy, politics, and economics. His email is edenliu@sas.upenn.edu.
