There isn't a better student organization capable of annoying students through constant reminders of social quandaries and group objectives than WISPIRG. The Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group's passion for lobbying government through grassroots campaigning makes its primarily ""green"" mission well-known across the UW-Madison campus. And while I could do without the little red flyer and signature clipboard being thrown in my face every time I stroll through Library Mall, I can't deny that the stream of information provided to students through WISPIRG makes it a valuable resource on campus.
Despite its efforts to mobilize students for the progression of human and environmental issues, the Student Services Finance Committee declared the group ineligible for 2011-12 General Student Service Funds—money allocated based on a series of viewpoint neutral requirements. The SSFC argues that WISPIRG fails to deliver services to a demographic that is comprised of 75 percent UW-Madison students, which is a primary requirement for GSSF funding. Losing this GSSF status completely defunds the organization for the 2011-12 fiscal year—risking the group's existence on campus.
WISPIRG's reputation for lobbying the public to death makes its efforts to appeal SSFC's decision unsurprising. Because WISPIRG was granted $128,378 through GSSF funds to operate for the current fiscal year, it wouldn't come as a shock if the group picketed outside of SSFC Chair Matt Manes' bedroom window until he wrote them a personal check.
And those who have been on WISPIRG's phone list know they won't give up. According to a Badger Herald article by Tracia Johnson, WISPIRG argues that taking away funding because its service expansion doesn't mathematically equate to three-fourths of the student body ultimately punishes the organization for their state-and nationwide campaign success—an observation that is absolutely right. Even if WISPIRG were to benefit 500 individuals within Wisconsin and 300 of the group were UW-Madison students, according to GSSF rules, they still wouldn't be eligible for funding.
The fact that WISPIRG is an incredibly influential group, not only on campus but throughout the state, allows the organization to expand its benefits outside university lines—something ASM should applaud rather than hinder. WISPIRG's achievements range from informing students about the cyclical process of homelessness facing Madison to collaborate efforts with other schools in shutting down a polluting coal plant. The group exists primarily to train students in lobbying and canvassing techniques while acting as a forum for students interested in political activism. In a nutshell, rather than aiming to provide concrete and physical services to campus, WISPIRG instead presents students with opportunities for achievement.
Because of this, WISPIRG justifiably argues that SSFC used non-viewpoint neutral tactics when denying them funding. The advocacy training that WISPIRG offers can be tailored to any student on campus, making it a service available to 100 percent of the student body. SSFC's refusal to consider this factor gives merit to WISPIRG's argument that the committee inherently defined what a ""service"" was, which WISPIRG feels violates viewpoint neutrality.
But while the group may be well versed in the art of petitioning for a significant cause, their last hope at reclaiming the denied GSSF funds will most likely feel the wrath of SSFC's financial shoe as Manes puts his foot down. Before given the opportunity to reapply for funding, WISPIRG has to receive the blessing of the Student Judiciary. The decision as to whether WISPIRG will be allowed the opportunity for rebuttal will be announced sometime within the next few days. But even if they are granted permission to reapply, they still have to make a case to a strict ASM and a conservative SSFC.
While the hurdles are high and the outcome grim, WISPIRG's argument remains strong. Its decision to appeal to the SSFC is wise, as our university can't afford to lose a primary advocacy group on one of the most politically influential campuses in the nation. Rather than upholding stringent bylaws, ASM's attention should be turned to finding different outlooks able to preserve WISPIRG and the humanitarian efforts for which it campaigns.
Although it is important to follow a rigorous set of guidelines when allocating funds to numerous student groups, it is just as vital that our student government makes an effort to encourage large and successful campus organizations. The SSFC may stand strongly by its decision to deny funding to WISPIRG in the next fiscal year, but WISPIRG's lobbying expertise makes them a force to be reckoned with. I can only hope that their crusading efforts to get students to donate a mere $5 for clean energy translate well when pleading for funds totaling over $100,000—a canvassing tactic they should be well prepared for.
Sam Witthuhn is a junior majoring in journalism and political science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
