We are excited that this news has renewed interest on this campus about student government and particularly the AAS budget, and we appreciate the suggestions that have been made.
However, we feel strongly that these suggestions, including those made by senior faculty and administration, fail to maximize the potential of this fund and are therefore short-sighted. $200,000 is not a paltry sum of money; the student body might never again find itself in possession of such a windfall. We must choose carefully what to do with this money; although it would fund more programming today, it has the potential to fund increased programming permanently, if we consider the possibility of investing it.
Following Dean Haynes' announcement, certain members of the administration have asserted that the reserves give the Senate sufficient funds to incur the costs of all student-initiated programming on campus and, subsequently, that the administration will not help fund any student-initiated programming until the AAS depletes some of its reserves. We feel that this assertion is short-sighted. We believe that the announcement of the $200,000 provides the student body a perfect opportunity to define what it should be funding through its self-imposed student activity fee-activities such as student organization meetings, cultural and religious dinners and events, publications, club sports and student-attended conferences. But also, the announcement gives us the opportunity to decide what we cannot fund. Even if we received a $200,000 windfall each year, the student body could not fund all the diverse student-initiated programming that occurs each year. Unfortunately, this injection of funds is a one-time event; thus we have only one chance to do this right and benefit the student body in the long-run.
We, as a student body, need to realize that one of the things we cannot fund with our student activities fees alone is academic or activist speakers. We need the President's Fund and other lecture funds to cover the costs of the many important activists we bring on campus, and, by doing so, permit the student activities fee to cover its responsibilities to campus activities and events.
We feel that such a request is reasonable. The President and the administration claim that the College is a socially conscious campus. In fact, they bank on it-both in their presentation of the College to peer institutions and in their quest for a stronger, more diverse student body. But the student body cannot afford to keep paying for this luxury of theirs. The money is available for our share of student-initiated programming. But the money for speakers and other visitors to the College need to be covered by the President's Fund, department funds, and the countless lecture funds that bring speakers from all walks of life to this campus.
The student body needs to have better access to these accounts, so that we can better influence how they are being used. Each semester countless academics and activities descend on Amherst, thanks to generous alumni grants. If students could offer input on which speakers to bring-by knowing what grants are available and who controls them-the College would bring in lecturers whose issues resonate best with those promoted by the student body. Besides allowing students to see individuals they know discuss issues they care about, this process would remove some of the burden placed on the President's Fund and the AAS accounts.
This $200,000 should not be used to reinforce the current system; it is both insufficient and insolvable. We must move beyond our initial shock at having this money to a place that is more financially viable and less ambiguous to students, faculty and administration. Together we can redefine Amherst as the College on the Hill and do so in a way that is financially solvent for the student body and the faculty and administration.
Stein is a junior majoring in European studies and economics. He is currently serving his third year with the AAS Senate.