Campus funding should not be used to support a non-profit
By Jessica Rothschild '06
The Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG) is an organization with fantastic goals. I mean, who can argue with wanting a better, cleaner environment and widespread support for the individual as opposed to the large corporation? I don't think that many people can argue against that. What I do disagree with strongly, however, is the necessity of funding such an operation, and I find it preposterous that an immediate 80 percent increase is requested.

Last semester, what impact did MASSPIRG have on this campus? The only notable work accomplished was a voter registration drive. However, this drive was not exactly run in the best interests of the student body; rather, it was run in the best interests of the organization. MASSPIRG's goal was to register voters in Massachusetts, regardless of whether it was in the best interests of the students and/or the nation to be registered in their home states. The objective of the voter registration drive was to boost the organization's numbers. Nevertheless, this all becomes a moot point when one considers the funding necessary for such an operation. Certainly, this endeavor would not be worthy of $5 in funding per student (which comprises the per semester fee). MASSPIRG did not spend $5 per person to the benefit of the student body last fall.

This gets to the main issue of contention: MASSPIRG's funding does not benefit the student body. Each year we pay $197 in student activities fees, and annually $10 goes to MASSPIRG unless you individually make the effort to get this fee refunded. The point is that by virtue of a majority vote in favor of MASSPIRG funding, we deny ourselves that amount of funding, which multiplied by the student body amounts to approximately $16,000.

Think of all the amazing on-campus programming that could occur with that funding. The fact remains that this money does not go directly towards Amherst programming. According to the Web site of the Amherst chapter of MASSPIRG, "The majority of MASSPIRG's money goes to hire staff advocates to represent MASSPIRG and the public interest in the state legislature and in Washington, D.C., and organizers to work with students at the campus level." While I agree that such pursuits are worthwhile, they do not necessitate the spending of student activities fees. Surely such pursuits can be accomplished through the same mechanisms other student organizations operate under.

In addition, most of the MASSPIRG-sponsored activity occurring on the Amherst campus does not require funding. When I was a first-year, I was even an avid member of MASSPIRG. I worked on a campaign to get the PVTA to purchase more fuel-efficient buses. Throughout my efforts in this vein, money was never necessary, nor did I ever have any interaction with the MASSPIRG staffers, whose salary is partially subsidized through our student activities fees.

What does this mean? If students are interested in a particular campaign, they will get involved in that campaign, regardless of whether there is a statewide program monitoring their actions. Amherst students are resourceful in obtaining their club's objectives. Other clubs function efficiently on this campus, even more efficiently than does MASSPIRG, yet they do not have the bureaucratic organizational structure run by paid staffers. And, why should we, college students, be expected to fund the work of this non-profit?

Yesterday, the biannual referendum on MASSPIRG funding was held. According to the Amherst MASSPIRG Web site, this referendum is "a way to reaffirm student support for the work we do. That mandate from the Amherst community says that students want clean water, affordable higher education and our last wilderness protected." First of all, "mandate?" Hold on, like Bush's mandate in Iraq, to get support from the constituents and then do as you please, regardless of whether the money is reinvested in the campus?! Where's the democracy in taking students' money without their support? The truly democratic manner to raise necessary funds is through fundraising. Secondly, a vote against funding MASSPIRG in no way indicates students' reluctance to support MASSPIRG's causes. I, for example, spent four unpaid weeks of my summer educating Floridians about the environment.

Currently, the Amherst chapter of MASSPIRG claims to be working on "pass[ing] an energy efficiency bill in the state legislature to reduce our dependence on dirty energy; working to clean up our state's most polluted waterways; working to fight hunger and homelessness by opening a Five College soup kitchen; and pressuring textbook publishers to stop ripping students off," according to the Web site. MASSPIRG, I commend you in your efforts, yet I fail to see the need for the funding of these endeavors. As you can probably tell by now, MASSPIRG has excellent goals. But, as you should also be able to tell by now, MASSPIRG's functioning is truly not dependent on "mandated" funding. MASSPIRG should be held to the same standards as all other campus clubs. I sincerely hope that the referendum does not pass.

Rothschild can be reached at jirothschild@amherst.edu

Issue 24, Submitted 2005-04-20 15:36:12