If we are to believe the president of the Undergraduate Council of Students, Brian Becker '09, the UCS is essentially a government to which each Brown undergraduate is accountable simply by virtue of attending this University.
After the release of a poll finding that almost half of the student population has no opinion of UCS, Becker told The Herald, "You're always going to have a problem with constituents not always knowing what their governments are doing" ("Half of students have no opinion on UCS," Nov. 7).
Apparently, UCS is a government and not merely the student advocacy group that one would expect it to be. But Becker cannot be faulted for having such a view, as I am sure that most of the leaders of UCS find their work to be critically important to the proper functioning of the school.
However, as the poll should indicate, a massive plurality of undergraduates find our student "government" to be so trivial as not to have an opinion of it.
Notwithstanding the campus laughter over tabling amendments with non-"gender-neutral" language, undergraduates rarely cross paths with UCS unless a grievance against the University's administration requires a conduit.
The Undergraduate Finance Board, however, is a totally different animal. As the financial wingman to UCS, with its own separate leaders, UFB has an immense impact on the social and extracurricular lives of most students. UFB, after all, decides which groups shall get what amount of money, beyond the baseline funding. UFB is the ultimate gatekeeper.
Anyone who has ever applied for regular funding via the spring budgeting process, or supplemental funding throughout the academic year, knows the deal: A body comprised of a chair, vice chair and then 10 additional representatives hears requests for funding and later decides if the request accords with their vision of the appropriate use of the Student Activities Fee.
The fee is currently at $164 (incorrectly listed on the UFB website as $146, which was the amount before last year's increase), though UCS has recently passed a resolution requesting that the University Resources Committee raise the amount by $7.
This system is absurd. It requires a type of logical dance for most funding decisions. For example, UFB has a policy where they will not fund food except in special circumstances. What these circumstances are and when they apply are relatively arbitrary. Moreover, the anti-liberty element inherent to a system where self-proclaimed "experts" on student groups decide how to allocate other students' money.
Furthermore, paying the Student Activities Fee is compulsory.
To recap: Each undergraduate is forced to pay a fee that a team of experts later allocates at its sole discretion, in a manner sold to prospective students and even current ones as being part of a system of student self-governance.
What in God's name is self-governing about a system that coerces monetary involvement by the population, and then disburses funds as its directors see fit?
Self-governance implies control of one man over himself and his property, not one man over another or a group over a population. Even elected representatives, such as the ones who sit on UFB, should not have the power to violate that relationship.
A small elite weighs options for spending money and subsequently makes decisions on behalf of the entire population, all the while using money acquired from that population by a spirit of theft. Each student should be able to choose how to spend his $164 individually.
The leaders of UFB, I must stress, do not use their own money, or merely the sum of money derived from the Student Activities Fee that each leader pays (collectively $1,804 or 11 x $164). They mostly use other students' money, thus operating under two tacit assumptions:
First, they assume they are in a better position, as central planners, to spend our money - an empirical assumption that has been refuted by a century of collectivist experiments.
Second, they assume they are wiser and are more capable of choosing which groups and events should be funded and to what extent - a moral assumption that flies in the face of actual self-governance. In a true system of self-governance, a student would be able to spend his own money.
However one evaluates UFB actions, the underlying, uncharitable assumptions about the capabilities and wisdom of each student are enough to make its existence morally unacceptable. I tried to get the UFB perspective but was met with refusal. Both Chair Lily Tran '10 and Vice-Chair Stefan Smith '09 denied me an interview.
Tyranny certainly manifests itself in much more calamitous ways, but the seeds of the tyranny intrinsic to rule by experts are sown in the small things of life. These small things create a culture in which this type of illiberalism becomes accepted.
I hope, therefore, to begin a conversation regarding how student groups on campus are and should be funded. Should each student, using his own money, decide which groups are worthy of funds, or should a team of experts make those decisions, using other people's money?
Our choice comes down to that.
Sean Quigley '10 is an expert.
