Spring Break
WSG says no to using student fees to fund free lunch program
Jerica Harvey
Issue date: 11/28/07 Section: News
- Page 1 of 1
|
The Segregated University Fee Allocation Committee recommended WSG approve none of the $15,025 UMM requested for the 2008-09 school year. UMM appealed the decision at the Nov. 19 meeting.
The SUFAC received the request from UMM to fund food and worker's pay for the free lunch program. SUFAC then recommended to WSG that they receive no funding for the 2008-09 school year.
University Ministry Coordinator Sandy Hiebert said SUFAC denied the funding for two reasons: the program would no longer be a 'free' service to students, and it would open a door for other programs to ask for more funding.
Hiebert felt both reasons were unfair even though every UW-Whitewater student would be paying $1.50 more in student fees for the program to function for a whole year.
"SUFAC funds many other programs like athletics and SEAL that host events that are "free" to students even though SUFAC funds is paying for them," she said. "SUFAC has opened the door for many student organizations to apply for funds and we should not be denied just because we are a different type of programming."
Hiebert said she and others involved in the program will continue to look for other means of funding and donation to hopefully keep the program functioning.
UMM has lost $24,000 in total funding from various donors, but has already managed to regain some of that money from other areas.
Other debate around the issue consisted of a neutrality policy, the program being an off-campus venue, liabilities and administration concern.
SUFAC and WSG must abide by a policy of neutrality, especially for religious organizations. Since it is student money, SUFAC requires funding to remain neutral and restricted from any "extracurricular speech or expressive activities."
A few members of WSG were concerned about funding an organization that is part of a church. Other members felt denying the organization any funds for that reason could be in discriminatory.
Academic Affairs Director Justin O'Rourke said he believed the program does entail a captive audience and it was developed to spread Christianity among students.
In response, Hiebert said there may be a captive audience based on the fact that it is in a church where there are pictures and signs of Christian origin within the eating area however, nothing forces the students to pay attention or read the signs.
Hiebert also said she started the program eight years ago in order to get to know the students and be able to help take care of them in some way.
"A big part of the UMM statewide mission is to support students in getting their education," she said. "We thought that providing them with a lunch, a place to relax and hang out would be a way to help them in getting their education. What we didn't expect is how popular it would become."
Throughout the meeting amendments were made and voted on to award between $6,000 and $15,025, all failed to pass with the required two-thirds vote.
The free lunch is currently open to all students on Tuesdays at 10:45 a.m.-1 p.m. at the First United Methodist Church, 145 S. Prairie St.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 11
Kendra
posted 11/28/07 @ 10:02 AM CST
Wow, this is sad. :( These people aren't giving funding to something that costs only a 1.50 raise in student fees? We students have to pay more fees for things we don't all use that are more than that. (Continued…)
Matt
posted 11/28/07 @ 12:52 PM CST
GOOD! Talk about silly. ALL of the students of the university should not be forced to pay for the "free" lunch of a few; at a church no less. What non-sense. (Continued…)
Tylur B.
posted 11/28/07 @ 8:05 PM CST
Push religion on you? I have been going to free lunch for years and have never had religion pushed apon me once. I think that the gesture of providing a good free meal to students is amazing. (Continued…)
Chad
posted 11/29/07 @ 6:04 PM CST
I agree with Matt.
Honestly, Church and State - Keep them Seperate.
Way to go WSG!
MSimms
posted 12/05/07 @ 5:03 AM CST
Yes, congratulations -- sad/scary that WSG must even be in this situation. I must commend WSG on its polite manners as well. Talk about Chutzpah.
Stephen
posted 12/05/07 @ 2:38 PM CST
I am a Senator in WSG and although I concur with the disappointed feelings expressed in some of the most recent articles within the Royal Purple, I am somewhat dumbfounded of the extent of which WSG representation on the subject has been distorted. (Continued…)
Chris
posted 12/06/07 @ 9:51 AM CST
It seems fallacious to say that if the Williams Center and other programs of substance around campus are being funded (a sunk cost at this point), that a free lunch program would just be another fee within the nebula of already increasing costs. (Continued…)
Matt
posted 12/06/07 @ 10:07 AM CST
Appears to me the church seeks funds from UWW because a majority of those who take advantage of the free lunch are UWW students. I agree that a public institution offering funds to a religious organization is a bit of a touchy subject. (Continued…)
Jeff
posted 12/09/07 @ 8:58 AM CST
It's sad that we are putting field turf on our football and baseball fields, but raising tuition to cover free lunch, NOPE.
John Locke
posted 12/16/07 @ 12:07 AM CST
As much as I am a hawk on the separation between church and state, I believe that this is a case of taking it too far. This congregation makes a good-will gesture to the students of this University (gestures like this, as anyone who has lived in this town should know, are very hard to come by), and the Student Government (which if anyone has taken the time to read the minutes of their meetings does not actually represent students) throws it back in their face. (Continued…)
Post a Comment