The first thing that we consider in whether or not to fund something is whether or not the it comports sufficiently with our College's beliefs-what I have called in the past our sphere of acceptable discourse. This means we would not fund a homophobia club, for example, whose stated goal is the intimidation of homosexuals on this campus. As one of the foremost educational institutions in the country, everything we do is scrutinized across the nation.
We must also determine, to this end, whether the object serves some part of the College's educational mission, be it an intellectual end or an athletic end. Our College has a fairly encompassing view of what furthers our educational mission. There is much that can be learned from many activities, including political ones.
Once a funding proposal has cleared these hurdles, the underlying concept that guides most funding decisions on this campus, be it faculty hiring or club funding, is to maximize quality for the largest quantity of people. This does not necessarily mean we always provide full funding to clubs with the most members, nor does it mean that we deny funding to clubs that cost a lot but service a relatively small number of people. The net outcome is a delicate balancing act between the two extremes.
We do not, however, believe that funding must always demonstrate a parity between two sides of an issue. We do not view this process as a political wrangling match in which both sides need equal amounts of funding for their campaigns. Many have called for the funding of the Democrats and the Republicans on campus to be equal under this sort of a vision. They assert that "the [non-monetary] contributions to the Bush and Kerry campaigns should be equal." This perspective represents the same attempt to inject conservative ideology into every part of this College that I have fought when it comes to ideologically discriminatory hiring.
We do not fund campus political organizations because we think that this campus should be making political contributions, rather we fund them because they are clubs that provide services to the College community. These organizations bring in speakers, they foster discussions and they hold civic awareness campaigns. We ought to fund them because they provide these services to a community, not because they represent an ideology. Thus we ought to apply our concept of balancing between quantity and quality when we fund them, which does not mean parity. Rather, it means evaluating the funding proposals of each group and judging them not in relation to one another, but in general, how much they will benefit campus life. This means asking what each organization has done, what it plans to do and how important these proposals are to the College community, and also how many members each organization serves. By the Republicans' own complaints about the lack of conservatives on campus it should be obvious that clubs like the Democrats or the Progressive Students Alliance serve a larger clientele.
One of the most important ways that these organizations can foster learning is through organizing campaign trips. We do not do this because we think it is important to help both candidates in the race. Instead, we do it because there are students who want to campaign for a candidate and there is something to be learned from this experience. While it is true that some members of our community may find the positions of some of these campaigns objectionable, as long as these positions come within our realm of acceptable discourse, their campaigners should be funded.
It should thus be evident why we should fund the bus for this weekend's March for Choice. Supporting a woman's right to reproductive freedom is clearly within our realm of acceptable discourse. We have information regarding emergency contraception and abortion on our health services Web site. This march will be a part of history, just as the Civil Rights March was in 1963, where Martin Luther King delivered his famous "I have a dream…" speech. At the very least, students will get the experience of being part of a nationwide political movement, including the opportunity to meet activists from all over the country.
While I sympathize with those who find the March at cross-purposes with their political beliefs, it meets the conditions for funding an event on this campus. Part of being a member of this community is realizing that we all must give and take a little. There are vegetarians on this campus who find the consumption of meat abhorrent or even murderous, but we do not stop serving meat because of this minority. We provide funding for the Amherst Veggie club, but we do not provide equal funding for an Amherst Carnivore club. The point is that this community welcomes this kind of diversity and encourages this kind of political activity regardless of its slant, provided there is sufficient interest. No one opposing the March was prevented based on ideology from taking the bus with the marchers to go to Washington, D.C. for other events.
The March for Choice will be a part of history. This weekend, millions of supporters of women's reproductive rights from around the country will convene on the Mall. Congratulations to Amherst College and the Amherst students who will make the trip to join in this monumental event.