It's fairly evident that there are problems with the current student activities funding situation, as many groups and individuals have complained. Although I agree with Tal Liron's somewhat radical thoughts posted on the New Athenian calling for the abolition of the AAS, I don't think that this would do any good for the situation. We'd still need a party to distribute the funds fairly. Personally, I am indifferent to the nature of the AAS itself and the goals of its individual members. It builds up some people's resumes, allows them training in political careers, presents a (rather small) opportunity for others to try and make a difference and looks damn good on those little white and purple brochures the Admissions Office distributes to high school students on a daily basis. In fact, I may venture to say that the AAS is a good thing. And despite how much fun anarchy would be, the abolition of the student government is not only impossible, but also undesirable to the College itself.

That said, the AAS is still a student organization. It's created and run by the students of Amherst College, much like the Debate Team or The Amherst Student itself. But no matter how necessary this group is to the College, it should not be given the amount of power it has: to distribute funds allotted to student activities to other groups. The Amherst Student does not have such power but it is as necessary for an institution of higher education as a student government.

"But the U.S. government has power over every other 'American citizen organization,' and we are trying to model the real world with our student government," some may claim. That is true. However, the reason why I tolerate the IRS taking a portion of my paycheck and putting it to its own use is that it offers me protection both during an armed invasion and in court. Now, if Williams College launched an armed assault on our campus, I doubt the AAS would be able to do anything. And they certainly do not provide pre-law students for our defense if we got our alcohol confiscated by the Campus Police.

In fact, I don't need the AAS for anything. It's nice that they shower us with little gifts like free airport transportation and sleds, but aside from the few people who otherwise could not get to the airport, do we actually need any of the services they provide? In this sense, the AAS cannot be classified as more than just a student organization, but giving it the financial power it currently has is to say that the AAS is special. That's a contradiction; and any beginner logician knows that when there's a contradiction, something was wrong to begin with.

At this point, several of you would jump up and call me a hypocrite. "What about NOTE, Wing, which you are an officer of? Doesn't it get special treatment from the College? Doesn't it have special powers over certain student groups?" To counter those points briefly, NOTE is funded mostly by alternative sources such as the dean's office; we requested about $200 from the AAS last semester. Furthermore, all of NOTE's powers over individual clubs are collaborations (e.g. webpages) between the groups. Alternative funding sources such as academic departments and the Campus Center are not part of the budgetary committee issue by definition.

So what if the AAS no longer wields this financial scepter? Who would? Liron suggested that the administration take over at this point, and I partially agree with him considering my relatively pleasant exchanges with members of the faculty and administration over student activities funding. However, what if we give the power back to the students? We all contributed, as part of the comprehensive fee, a few hundred dollars for student activities. What if we choose to spend them on organizations that we deem worthy? If you like, say, Prism, then you would contribute a certain amount of money from your account to Prism.

Taking that idea and the possibilities of abuse into account, I propose the following system. Student groups in need of funding should prepare clear outlines of their budget needs and short descriptions of their goals for the semester to present to the administration. The administration would then review the budget proposals, making sure that they are clear of foul language and not along the lines of "we take your money and buy lots of alcohol." The budget proposals would then be posted on a website on which which students would be able to choose where to contribute their money, perhaps in increments of five dollars. Student groups would be expected to produce receipts of their purchases and to not spend beyond what it previously declared. In addition, no group will receive more than what it originally asks for.

Under this system, the budgetary committee (BC) would no longer make decisions and would only exist to make sure nobody cheats, so a student committee would do as well as the BC. This system would also let clubs charge member dues. For example, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Club would be able to hold public screenings to which they would encourage attendees to contribute, or they would be able to hold both public and private screenings, where food is served during the private screenings which only contributing members can attend. Essentially, this system is based completely on the principles of capitalism: those clubs that do not attract student interest will not receive as much money, but that doesn't stop their founders from "investing" in their own clubs.

Considering the supposedly above-average intelligence of most Amherst students, I would expect that at least one of you is now asking "but who will handle the donation system? NOTE? Wow, Wing, that's just as fair as the current system." I would say so, as a piece of open source software certified by the administration and/or faculty is definitely more equitable than a group of people behind closed doors. Besides, for the price of a few trees and perhaps a small portion of our activities fee for labor, this could be done on paper.