Here is the full, unedited text of the letter the MultiCultural Student Coalition sent to Chancellor David Ward last Friday.
MultiCultural Student Coalition
333 E. Campus Mall, Suite 3125
Madison, WI 53715
March 23, 2012
Mr. David Ward
Chancellor, UW-Madison
500 Lincoln Dr., 161 Bascom Hall
Madison, WI 53706
Dear Chancellor Ward,
The MultiCultural Student Coalition (MCSC) would like to thank you for the listening ear you provided at the ASM Coordinating Council meeting on Wednesday, March 7th in the Student Activity Center. This letter contains pertinent information which we hope you will weigh heavily as you have been asked to make decisions regarding the SUFAC budget that was presented to your office last week. To add, MCSC’s budget and pursuit of eligibility was neither addressed nor included. In fact, MCSC has not even been informed of the appeal policy or procedures. This letter is an official request for MCSC eligibility, and also a request for a 2 hour meeting with you during the week of March 26 - March 30th, 2012 to discuss that appeal request as well as the additional concerns addressed in this letter. In lieu of not being given a formal appeal process, this letter is MCSC’s best understanding of how to proceed in the search for MCSC eligibility for fee funding in fiscal year 2012-2013 (as advised by the ASM Chair).
We begin with our most recent interaction which took place at the ASM Coordinating Council meeting (CoCo). The display you witnessed at that meeting was an example of our yearlong struggle to convey our concerns over the legitimacy of function within and amongst members of the ASM student government. MCSC’s purpose in presenting to the ASM leadership at CoCo was to make clear the MCSC pursuit of the eligibility for the fiscal year ‘12-’13. It was also to achieve understanding amongst the parties present regarding the significance of the ‘11-’12 fall semester Student Judiciary (SJ) ruling against the Student Services Finance Committee (SSFC). This ruling found the SSFC guilty of breaking the ASM Constitution through premeditated actions resulting in the violation of student rights of due process during a budget allocation cycle. The point we attempted to highlight during the meeting was the fact that the legality of SSFC’s actions had been ruled on by the SJ and are not supported by the ASM Constitution and Bylaws. To be specific, SSFC violated viewpoint neutrality which qualifies MCSC for a new funding hearing according to the ASM Bylaw 5.07(3) – a bylaw SJ is currently attempting to change. As I’m sure you can imagine the illegal action taken by SSFC negatively impacted MCSC and other Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) in general.
During the CoCo meeting, MCSC staff members witnessed, in your presence, the deliberate, coordinated and undeniable attempt of the Chief Justice of the SJ, Kate Fifield, and the chair of the SSFC Sarah Neibart to prevent MCSC from voicing our concerns to ASM leadership. The attempted denial of our voice in the presence of our Chancellor was especially disturbing. In a meeting where our goal was to project our understanding of a set of procedural actions – which have violated ASM, University System, and Regent Policy as well as Federal Court mandates, in the hopes that a clear path to eligibility becomes available – MCSC finds the actions of Chief Justice Fifield and Chair Neibart unacceptable and wholly inappropriate.
In truth, the most disturbing feedback we have from the meeting was watching and confirming the role that Dean of Students (DoS) Lori Berquam played in the obvious collusion that took place. It is true that students being supported by administration is a good thing, however the meeting you attended showed how student positional power is being abused, and the close and personal support Lori Berquam has and continues to offer students who have been abusing their power positions the entire school year. We hope that you were able to identify these problem areas during the meeting.
MCSC finds it problematic that the SSFC chair and the SJ Chief Justice felt it to be an appropriate use of student power to involve a UW Madison (UW) lead attorney in this matter. With the specific intention to use that attorney’s written statement and the credibility of her position’s influence, the SJ Chief Justice added her own words to that statement in a blatant attempt to extort the ASM Chair and the ASM Diversity Committee Chair to remove MCSC’s presentation from the CoCo agenda. This all occurred to prevent the vocalization of MCSC’s procedural violation concerns in front of ASM leadership and the highest level of on-campus authority relevant to the fee funding process – the Chancellor’s Office. This is a sickening display of how student power should never be used, and the most flagrant violation of the spirit of peer-driven shared governance that we have seen. It is beyond disturbing that the words of Nancy Lynch have been cut-n-pasted, paraphrased, misquoted and inappropriately used to rationalize and justify the desired agenda of a concerted group of SJ ASM members and SSFC leadership.
To be honest, what is even more disturbing is what you witnessed: the statements made, body language displayed, student interactions, and noticeable panic of the DoS at the March 7th meeting. Dean Berquam made repeated attempts to escort you out of the room, participated in note passing with the SJ Chief Justice, and prompted the interruption of the agenda where the SJ Chief Justice announced that it was time for you to leave, as if she was doing you a favor. The DoS’s unprofessional demeanor and side conversations with Kate Fifield and Sarah Neibart made it clear that those three individuals were all under the impression that MCSC was there to ‘ambush’ (in their words) you for an immediate decision as to the future of MCSC eligibility. These specific examples created distractions that were disrespectful, and understood to be deliberate attempts to pull you away from your goal of listening to students. We thank you for staying.
We believe Dean Berquam’s action and involvement with the decision to use processes that do not support equal opportunity and due process treatment in protecting ALL student rights regarding the fee allocation process is atrocious, and is of deep concern to MCSC and to the many diverse student groups we represent. As the ultimate example to prove collusion from the DoS in intentional and premeditated disparaging treatment of MCSC’s student rights, the DoS and the SSFC chair have been in correspondence regarding GSSF RSOs that may need to go through the appeal process to your office. Both Dean Berquam and Chair Neibart have yet to directly communicate with MCSC regarding the official process or timeline of the appeal process. The Friday following the Wednesday meeting of the ASM leadership council you attended, the DoS sent an email correspondence to the SSFC Chair and ASM chair stating:
“….if there are any entities interested in an appeal to the Chancellor, it will need to be soon. As you know the budget has to be in the hands of the Regents by April 1. I believe the SSFC presentation is on March 29. - Thanks and I hope you enjoy your weekend!”
As the SSFC chair has been attesting to all year, she believes that her position as SSFC Chair is the dominant, controlling, and responsible student leadership position for any RSO needs regarding GSSF budgeting. The fact that the campus has seen both the SSFC chair and the SJ Chief Justice pronounce and celebrate the “...end of MCSC as a budgeted entity,” and publicly declare that there is no remaining appeal process that can grant MCSC eligibility for the fiscal year ’12-’13, is deliberately misleading and false information given to MCSC and the campus public. Additionally, MCSC knows that both of these individuals are aware of the F(50) policy that lays out the path to final decisions on eligibility of fee allocation going through your office and the Board of Regents. This is the very definition of what we mean by corrupt collusion. With so little effective training in student fee policy education – those with access to information being the SSFC Chair, SJ and ASM Chair – the student body intellect is at the mercy of what information this small group of students decides to pass on. It is obvious to many of the GSSF RSOs and many elected representatives on ASM bodies that the SSFC has been less than forthright in the integrity of information relayed to MCSC regarding the eligibility process of appeal that MCSC has announced for months to the SSFC and ASM Student Council, and again, the attempt that you witnessed on March 7th. It is only because of the work of the ASM Chair that we have had access to the information that we have. This year has seen a deliberate attempt of the SSFC Chair to undermine and deny the ASM Chair’s role and jurisdiction in fee processing decisions.
Furthermore, it is unimaginable that the DoS would not directly contact MCSC, in doing her job to make sure that all students are given the protection of their due process rights in the fee allocation process. Not only has the DoS allowed the bar of student fee competency to remain irresponsibly low amongst the ASM professional staff, but to not insist that Kevin Helmkamp, as the Chancellors’ appointee to the SSFC process, have a conversation with MCSC over the next steps to support their student experience by informing them of their due process rights, is beyond intentional negligence; it is corruption.
To detail this example in comparison, before the fall semester was underway, the Office of the Dean of Students (ODOS) was proactively probing into our organization’s business as the DoS “student insiders” delivered information that MCSC was considering proposing budgeted positions for LTE/FTE professional staff. ODOS went out of their way to invite and suggest meetings with MCSC leadership. Before the start of the school year on August 25th, 2012 Kevin Helmkamp’s email to MCSC leadership was the epitome of proactive measures taken by DoS in “support” of MCSC’s initiative to improve program efficiency, stating that,
“I spoke with Divisional staff about your request and can report back the following:
1. Limited Term Employees (LTE) would only be approved where there is an unfilled Full Time Employee
(FTE). As such, this would not be an option for you.
2. FTE's can be requested however it is unlikely that it would be approved. Supervision of an FTE would not
rest with a student group but would have to be within a university department.”
Unfortunately, this pro-activeness was not to be in support of bringing back the professional staff help that completed our program as a full service, student-driven diversity education program (MCSC’s DEP). The staff from under the DoS was simply getting an early start on discouraging MCSC from proposing professional staff or limited term employees in its future budget proposals, saying that the ODOS is “unlikely” to be in support of adding full time staff to work for MCSC. Of course, it is their prerogative to make the call about FTE/LTE position approval. What MCSC is arguing is that the DoS saw fit in this situation to proactively intervene when MCSC had concerns and initiatives that required administrative information and support. It is interesting that the claim from the same RSO that they are being exterminated through illegal processes via policy manipulation, does not compel the DoS and her office take action to communicate with MCSC about the proper UW System policy and procedure in the matter of the RSO challenging the annual budget as being illegally seized by corrupt members of the student government.
Again, both the DoS and the SSFC chair were both there at the Wednesday ASM leadership meeting to listen to and respond – as asked by MCSC – to our request regarding pursuit of eligibility for the fiscal year ‘12-’13. For neither of them to reach out to MCSC is negligence beyond reason is cause for immediate action in reform. In turn, MCSC is expected to accept being told that since the SSFC chair has now presented the GSSF budget to the Chancellor, there is simply nothing that MCSC can do.
As student leaders we have spent the better part of this academic year not on homework, and not on providing the service that we are organized to provide. Instead we have dedicated that time to airing our grievances regarding the illegal and discriminatory practices that contributed to the crafting of the GSSF budget that made its way to the Chancellor’s desk. We find it surprising that a clear and outlined process for appealing to the Chancellor has not been presented by ODOS or specifically the Chancellor’s designee to the SSFC process, given that this very situation is one of their primary responsibilities.
There is further proof of intentional negligence found in the SSFC Chair’s invented timeline, by which she has determined is her opportunity to present to the Board of Regents. And again, the DoS and her office demonstrate that they go along with whatever the SSFC Chair says, even when asked by the SSFC Chair to support the goal of appearing in front of the Board of Regents in order to ‘upstage’ the Chancellor. Being quoted as saying “if he overturns my decision,” clearly indicates that the SSFC Chair has an underdeveloped understanding of the student review process for non-allocables to match her mis-developed understanding of their jurisdiction in UW fee process allocation.
The SSFC chair is intentionally being negligent of the student due process rights mandated in the allocable funding structure, just as the student council remains trapped in the fear cycle of ignorance. The SSFC chair and poor training have combined to prevent the ASM Student Council from exercising the appropriate and ethical jurisdiction. This negligence is compounded and intentional by the SSFC leadership proactively enacting the same (GSSF-RSO) desired rights of appeal for non-allocable funding entities by engaging UW administration and projecting timelines in writing to administrative officials. These actions show the SSFC chair has sought out and communicated in search of knowledge and awareness of the appeal policy and procedure; the same procedure that the SSFC chair is purposefully not making available/known to the students of MCSC. MCSC’s blatant quest for the path to eligibility exposes the conscious behavior that is taking place by the SSFC chair and other informed members of ODOS.
Not only is the SSFC chair failing to do what she know that she should by facilitating the same appeal rights for MCSC, but her focus is to provide those due process rights for the non-allocable budgets. Policy states that SSFC can recommend in the review process for non-allocables yet somehow, (in lieu of a “well trained” and policy informed SSFC Committee) the SSFC chair manages to not apply the same protection standard to the 10 student of color/social justice RSOs targeted for elimination in the past 5 years. This occurred even though it is the allocable GSSF budgets which the Supreme Court mandated protection for in F(50) to preserve non viewpoint neutral fashion decision making in fee distribution amongst students. Again, ODOS condones this intentional mismanagement of student due process rights in fee process jurisdiction.
We are hoping that this matter does not need to reach the Board of Regents in a formal manner. Largely because it is truly embarrassing when a student over steps their boundaries to the extent that the SSFC chair and the SJ Chief Justice have. The SSFC chair has now moved on from involving Nancy Lynch in her plan to deny MCSC’s voice to be heard at an ASM leadership council meeting, to basing the credibility of her invented timeline of student fee budgeting submission on a conversation with Vice Chancellor Bazzell. In an email to ASM leadership and to staff in ODOS, the SSFC chair justifies a time line that is centered on her grandstanding at the Board of Regents meeting:
From the SSFC chair:
“Hey All,
I am actually presenting all of the budgets to the Chancellor this coming Wednesday, and the Chancellor will be giving me his decision on all of these entities the following week. The reason we are doing it this way rather than waiting for a formal Report of the Chancellor- presentation is because Vice Chancellor Bazzell and I realized that I would need to have adequate time to appeal to the Regents if the Chancellor decides to supersede SSFC's decisions on the non-allocable. The appeal is due to the regents by April 1.
I will not be giving a formal Report to the Chancellor, when I am done with the report I will drop off a copy in all of your mailboxes.”
The SSFC chair specifically notes a day that the appeal process is expected to hit the Board of Regents. Again, a message to MCSC was never given; and still until this week of March 18-23, 2012, no word has been given. Just as she did by involving and embarrassing our university with the stunt she initiated using Nancy Lynch, Chair Neibart is now setting up Vice Chancellor Bazzell as the perceived credibility in her unilateral breaking of due process. She is doing this by rearranging the timeline and sequence of ASM presenting the budget to the chancellor and then the chancellor presenting to the Board of Regents. The completely unethical part of all of this is the SSFC chair knowing and having taken measures to ensure that the ASM chair, Student Council and SSFC (committee) know as little as possible about the actual timeline, policy or process. In fact, the most recent meeting of SSFC was cancelled due to lack of quorum. The once filled meeting room remains empty because Chair Neibart refuses to properly inform her committee regarding the actions she takes on their behalf. There is also a majority of the ASM professional staff being student fee incompetent which means there is no one to ask. The ASM professional staff who do know have shown and proven to have personal relationships in support of the students who are the core of this "concerted group".
Our larger concern as students is we do not want to have to organize around presenting the true state of UW student government corruption and affairs to the Board of Regents. However, we see UW administration accommodating Chair Neibart's rouge policy execution while seemingly playing a supporting role in the student fee mismanagement, overt multicultural incompetence, and downright discriminatory methods of institutional racism that are at work. The SSFC chair is a UW student who has lead the current effort of deliberate and student government sponsored genocide of student of color-based organizing and programing for UW student driven diversity education to improve campus climate.
The SSFC chair’s intention is to make a presentation about how the chancellor is "overriding" her decision when the UW system policy she misunderstands clearly lays out the protocol and hierarchy of decision making. What the chair has not considered, and what we are hoping you will, is that we will let not the SSFC chair hide her and her concerted groups' effort to end student of color organizing and programming. In pursuit of justice and fair treatment, and to uphold the idea of UW student integrity, we will make sure that the Board of Regents meeting is presented with the current and pending ASM legislation calling for Chair Neibart's impeachment from her position as SSFC for multiple and consistent viewpoint neutrality violation. These include violating student due process rights as she has been convicted of by the SJ. We will make clear the extent of her severely unethical behavior, lying to students regarding fee distribution information, seizure of power and authority beyond her jurisdiction. We will also emphasize that she has done so with the complete support and compliance by the ODOS and subordinate staff.
Regarding MCSC’s Eligibility, we present you with the following facts:
The SSFC chair has been promoting the idea that her position as SUFAC chair is equal to that of the Student Government chair. This is in lieu of the fact that the ASM constitution clearly states that the SSFC powers and duties as the Segregated University Fee Allocation Committee (SUFAC) are to “recommend.” They also spell out how the SSFC is a subordinate committee of the ASM student government. The article below is from the ASM Constitution and lays out the examples of non-compliance by SSFC leadership:
“Article IX: Student Services Finance Committee
Section 3: Powers and Duties.
SSFC shall recommend in writing all allocations of Segregated University Fees to the SC. The recommendations of SSFC shall be deemed recommendations of the ASM unless the SC by two-thirds vote within four weeks of receipt amends them, rejects them or by a majority vote refers them back to SSFC.
(b) SSFC shall not recommend allocations unless they further the general student interest.
(c) No student service allocated Student Fees in one fiscal year may be deleted from the SSFC budget for the next fiscal year except (i) internal disbandment of the service, (ii) failure to apply, or (iii) by the SSFC, acting pursuant to such exceptions as may be established in the Bylaws only for the purpose of bringing the ASM Student Fee process or the service in question into compliance with federal or state law or University System policy.”
The SSFC has but one power and duty according to the ASM constitution and the UW System policy, and that is to recommend items that further the general student interest to the ASM Student Council. It is the presiding student government body of UW which makes all final decisions and is therefore ultimately responsible for fee allocation decisions.
The above excerpt from the ASM Constitution lists three items under powers and duties. SSFC has violated two of the three in forwarding the GSSF budgets to the Student Council. While the SSFC Chair has personally argued that they believe that preventing MCSC from being eligible to have annual budgeting would further her vision of the general student interest, MCSC as a student service has not met any of the ASM constitutional requirements for being deleted from the (GSSF) budget for the next fiscal year.
This constitutional provision was authored with the specific intent to protect students’ rights from the ‘unbridled discretion’ that the Supreme Court noted as relevant in students not being able to protect themselves. You can imagine how important this preventative measure because in the case that a government intentionally acts in illegal and unethical ways in search of non-viewpoint neutral outcomes. Thus the remand of the Southworth case to Judge Shabaz, whose ruling demanded that adjustments be made to the ASM fee allocation policy and process to ensure that students were not granted unnecessary and inappropriate jurisdiction. This was done as a preventative measure to defend students against the abuse that has taken place the past five years which has now culminated this year into the targeting of MCSC losing its eligibility.
The fact that MCSC has been a recognized and eligible registered student organization for more than ten years should speak to the fact that MCSC has met, and continues to meet, the UW System policy mandates of eligibility criteria. These were determined by the Supreme Court decision that was written into both UW system and ASM policy over ten years ago. The subsequent reality is that the past five years have seen SSFC leadership, and others in student government, use their ‘unbridled discretion’ in committee control to change the wording of the criteria purposefully to limit entry into the fund. A quote from the SFFC 2010 Fiscal Year Report to the Chancellor states: “These decreases represent a concerted effort by student government leaders and SSFC to adopt long-term strategies for the sustainability of the GSSF. These efforts are thus far proving effective.” This concerted group goes on to state that one of the reasons that RSO groups were denied is due to “failure to aim their programming at reaching all students;” which is the result of manipulated policy that was struck down by Judge Shabaz in 2007 in a ruling which declared that RSOs have a right to free association as protected by the 1st Amendment. This means that any RSO may exist to organize for the benefit of and service to whomever is the object or target of that RSO’s mission.
The fallout from this ‘concerted groups’ policy change and manipulation of the general criteria mandate is that RSOs, such as Vets for Vets, a group that exists to organize around and empower veterans of our armed services, can no longer exist primarily to service veterans. The concerted groups’ policy manipulation has resulted in these organizations only being allowed to access GSSF annual funding if they focus the majority of their time, energy, planning and resources on students who are not veterans. This intentional criteria change came when the original wording of the eligibility criteria was manipulated by the same ‘concerted’ group of SSFC leadership who removed a two-word phrase “educational benefit” and replaced it with “direct service.” This change called for more discretionary decision making from SSFC members. As for each RSO, the SSFC members now have to figure out what a direct service looks like from the Campus Women’s Center or Wunk Sheek (the coalition of Native American students), etc.
Given the absence of both student fee training and multicultural competency training, the predominantly white and cross-culturally ignorant student body of the SSFC and their ASM professional support staff were unable to agree on an intelligent, neutral, and collective way to determine which of the groups’ activities count as ‘direct services’. These “direct services” exist as the written historical justification that SSFC used to eliminate the following groups from the annual budget Campus Women’s Center, Wunk Sheek, the Asian Pacific American Council, Jewish Cultural Collective, Legal Information Center, Student Tenant Resource Center, UW Roman Catholic Foundation, Wisconsin Public Interest Research group, and now the MultiCultural Student Coalition. Again, Judge Shabaz struck this down with the logic that forcing an organized group with respect to who the groups’ membership/target for service is both unreasonable and unconstitutional.
The concerted group goes on further to state that, "The criteria utilized this year are essential to limit entry into this fund. Since the GSSF allows RSOs to receive large, comprehensive budgets, proper barriers to entry must be put into place to avoid expansion of the fund to an unsustainable level …"
All of the aforementioned quotes as well as the above paragraph are taken directly from the 2010 Fiscal Year Report to the Chancellor (pages 24-25). The arrogance in this reporting is evidence of how warped, unbridled, and institutional the culture of inappropriate student leadership discretion has become. This same mentality has been furthered in subsequent years where members of the same 'concerted group' carried this philosophy into the culture of training new ASM students. The result of which is what we now have: a culture of fee distribution dominated by a small 'concerted group’ of students who have effectively controlled the process and information cycle of fee distribution. All of this takes place in an environment where there are no individuals (staff or students) who have knowledge and expertise in handling student fees that were here to witness and oversee the implementation of the legitimate 'general criteria' as policy mandates resulting from the US Supreme Court approval of student fee distribution.
The premeditated effort by the self-titled ‘concerted group of student leaders’ has continued to be pushed as the status quo method of ASM fee policy operation in the past several years. The Fiscal Year report to the Chancellor referenced above has become enshrined into SSFC’s reporting to the Chancellor as the purposeful state of affairs in ASM fee processing as shown in the Fiscal Year 2012 Report to the Chancellor issued in the spring of 2011:
“Over the past four years the GSSF has seen a dramatic decrease of approximately $2.3 million or 64%. These decreases represent a concerted effort by student government leaders and SSFC to adopt long-term strategies for the sustainability of the GSSF (explained in the previous section), along with a shift in the attitudes and ideological approaches present in the allocation of these dollars*. These efforts continued this year and are thus far proving effective.”
Historically speaking, the ending statement in the paragraph above would be considered racially motivated in a similar fashion to how "Jim Crow" laws became fused with the public administration policy as governing culture of 'states rights'. These concerted students realized that in order to 'responsibly' save students money by keeping taxes (segregated fees) low, they MUST shift their funding "attitudes and ideological approaches" to eliminate TEN annually funded student of color and social justice organizations. While in the process of eliminating these RSOs they use the same political ideology to change the culture of the grant allocation system for non-annually budgeted entities so that RSOs cannot receive support from the government, if they are receiving support from each other. This same strategy is utilized by the United States government as a systematic tool to break up impoverished families and people of color. This ideology has been embodied by the culture of ASM student fee processing and permeates through and from the ASM professional staff, who in turn act as subjective gatekeepers, preventing new funds from being allocated and preventing allocated funds from being processed.
In the absence of these student organizations, there has been NO UW unit to organize and create cultural awareness and understanding for the purpose of preventing the cultural, racial, and ethnic intolerance this campus has seen. It is evident that the number of resourced diversity education organizations are being strategically and maliciously eliminated by a concerted group of students who hide behind the idea of shared governance. The rate of hate crimes on campus 'magically' rise, while all of the complicit 'social justice moderates' act confused while offering vague conclusions (not solutions). Perhaps there is a relationship between the racist student government genocide against student of color organizations and the empowerment seized by the perpetrators of white racist hate.
As it was true during the UW System strategic plan 'Design for Diversity' and during Plan 2008, student of color, social justice and diversity education organizations on UW campuses continue to be primary, and in most cases are the ONLY PROACTIVE measure that exists in this campus climate to work against and offset the flurry of hate crimes that keep being reported as isolated incidents. This year, student of color organizations have communicated about more than 50 MAJOR 'isolated' incidents, while UW administration may have acknowledged four or five. Currently on campus, hate crimes against people of color and assaults against women are rising exponentially. This is also happening across the UW system. We ask, what organizing is being done about it? We trust that you and your administration will make good faith attempts, but good faith attempts DO NOT SOLVE the problem of unbridled white racism in action.
These current hate crimes will continue, and the only sources of energy that have been consistently there and culturally competent to provide a safe space for students are the students themselves who have the state protected right to organize around their preferred and best interest in the pursuit of their college education. Yet, because of how the racist culture of this campus has empowered a small group of students and professionals, student of color organizations have less resources and access to their funding to provide for their communities then they had five years ago. 600-700% less resources and 1000% less access to the student process of shared governance policy that guarantees them the right to use their student fees in whatever manner they see fit.
These hate crimes will go largely unaddressed by UW’s administrative professional staff, who will schedule a bunch of meetings to talk about how terrible these hate crimes are, only to emote to each other about good attempts tried in the past. They usually conclude those meetings with some vague and obscure reason why the resourcing for the solution faded out over time. The irony is it that UW has the RSOs who ALWAYS end up taking the majority of the community building needs that arise for students when white racism rears its consistent and ever-present head. Interesting that the same groups of organized students are currently or have been eliminated from controlling resources with which to do the very outreach that is needed to support the very victims of the hate that this UW culture and environmental climate pumps out EVERY DAY.
And how can it be that no professional staff at this research institution have identified this as a CORE AND IMMEDIATE need of focus. How can it be that student funding pays for professionals to help them "in good stewardship" when the outcome for white students and students of color in this process is far less than good stewardship?
In case this may not seem connected to the pending issue of MCSC’s appeal, these quotes from the Fiscal Year 2012 report to the chancellor were co-authored by the CURRENT SSFC Chair Sarah Neibart. We submit them to you as Interim Chancellor, as self-indictment of guilt that she and her group have premeditatedly engaged in violating the policy, spirit, and letter of the law in maintaining viewpoint neutrality in seeking the outcome of MCSC's illegal removal from the annual GSSF budget:
“*(SSFC)Chair Note: A concerted effort has been made and must continue to be made to maintain appropriate stewardship over these funds if this fund is to remain viable. The steps taken up until this year had resulted in a deep mistrust by GSSF groups of SSFC Administration, stemming from the necessary hack and slash mentality SSFC has taken in the eligibility and budgeting processes. This year has been a pivot point, however, because with a large portion of the abuse curtailed, efforts can once again be made to make the process more collaborative in nature. Great strides in this area can be made in upcoming years, however future Chairs must remain vigilant and take all necessary steps to ensure these budgets remain at viable levels.”
(?Both quotes are found in the 2012 fiscal year SSFC fiscal year - Report to the Chancellor on page 24, ‘Chair Note’ is at the bottom of the page while the “Ideological” quote is found in “3.1.3 Year in review” )
Not coincidentally, personnel and ideology from that “concerted group” were incorporated as personnel and policy philosophy into ODOS. This may explain how the DoS and the office staff have become so useless in their state and federally required role of being ‘Good-Faith Stewards’ in supporting and training students to participate in an ethical and viewpoint neutral fee distribution process. This wording appearing in the past three fiscal year ‘End of the Year’ reports to the chancellor means that the appropriate professional advising and supervising has not been done. The wording of the reports alone demonstrates the premeditated actions of non-compliance with federally mandated viewpoint neutral guidelines.
Additionally regarding compliance, negligence of both groups of students and professional staff is at the heart of the ruling of Southworth II (2002), when Judge Shabaz ruled that ‘Unbridled Discretion’ must be removed from the process of students allocating their fee process. And we assert that the general criteria as established by the Supreme Court mandate has been met by ALL of the groups that were subsequently eliminated from the GSSF accounts. The past years’ “concerted group efforts” have intentionally changed the GSSF criteria with the specific and admitted purpose to “limit entry into the fund.” All of this was grossly overlooked in the training from the ASM professional staff at the GSSF roundtable and eligibility training where no references were made to Southworth II (2002), or any of the other pending cases regarding SSFC leadership abuse. We find it important to know that those cases that failed to be mentioned resulted in a $500,000 payout this year related to similar abuse of SSFC discretion in requesting that ASM professional staff prevent a GSSF RSO from processing purchases and expenditures with already allocated student funds.
We are asking for you to recognize the unethical path of corruption which has corroded UW student climate, and has resulted in MCSC being denied eligibility. As we are and have been 10+ year partners with this campus’ fight to improve UW’s campus climate, we are asking you to grant MCSC eligibility with respect to MCSC believing that our organization has engaged in each and every policy measure prescribed for appealing ASM decision making within this fee allocation process. These attempts have only to be denied our due process rights by student peers and the professional staff who have assisted them.
During the process of MCSC ‘exhausting the system” of established methods to appeal for justice within the ASM, MCSC approached both the ASM Rules Committee and the ASM Diversity Committee to take up each of their committee charges in holding ASM responsible for the outcome of the SJ ruling that SSFC has violated the due process rights of MCSC students and RSOs in general. The Rules Committee chair verbally shared both sympathy and empathy with MCSC’s perspective, but was strong-armed by the ASM professional staff to not support the MCSC claims in resolutions to the ASM Council. We are prepared to name names when we meet with you. The climate of fear and aggressive pressure put on the Rules Committee chair to deny MCSC the committee's responsibility in ASM protocol proved to be too much for the committee chair. The very chair that then told MCSC that she would not be supporting their legitimate student fight to have their due process protected by acknowledging the sinister and unethical acts against MCSC. This is a remarkably unethical act by the ASM professional staff and yet another reflection of the DoS support staff available to help students in need. What’s further upsetting and depressing, is that the student chair of the ASM Rules committee is part of a GSSF RSO who was denied eligibility last school year by the same illegal criteria that is being used to eliminate MCSC. Her time and purpose in student government has been motivated by the unreasonable and unethical proceedings of the past several years; and as she positioned herself to influence positive change, the peer and professional staff pressure of institutional corruption scared her into leaving MCSC to the same fate as the RSO in which she experienced the same victimization.
The ASM Diversity Committee lived up to its name and purpose and unanimously passed a resolution requesting that the ASM Student Council grant MCSC a new budget hearing after closely reviewing the year's events. What you witnessed at the ASM leadership CoCo meeting was the tip of the iceberg in hate and negative energy that has been directed at the ASM Diversity Committee chair. Acts of blatant racism and intolerance have been directed at the Diversity Committee chair in email, social media, the campus newspapers, direct comments from elected representatives and the student body at large. NO ASM/ODOS PROFESSIONAL STAFF HAVE FULFILLED THEIR ROLE OF RESPONSIBILITY IN SUPPORTING THESE STUDENT CHAIRS AS THEY HAVE WORKED TO ACCOMPLISH THE EMPOWERMENT OF UW STUDENTS.
This past March 13th, was a Wednesday meeting of the Student Council in which the ASM Student Council voted to overturn the resolution led by a charge of the SSFC chair, and accompanied by past student government leaders and past SSFC chairs. This further identified those students as the ‘concerted group’ of students determined to limit entry into the fund. The majority of the ASM Student Council, as stated earlier in this letter, has spent their time this year on ASM Student Council in ignorance of student fee policy, and thus susceptible to the fear that comes when the SSFC chair threatens the ASM Student Council with inappropriate and unethical statements and tactics. (Examples of which you witnessed at the ASM leadership meeting; and without proper staff support or presences, their tactics get ugly and racist.)
Here we present you with a specific example of ASM Student Council institutional Racism:
The middle of the March 13th Student Council meeting saw a privilege exercise facilitated which revealed the extent of the multicultural incompetence that plagues the environment and reinforced the racist and fearful nature of the Student Council. This leaves students with the reasonable conclusion that there is a deliberate and dominating consensus to withhold student rights in fear of the concerted student group. Following the ‘privilege’ exercise, the student council went on to vote to overturn the binding Diversity Committee resolutions.
MCSC feels that all systems are exhausted. MCSC has received word from the ASM Chair that an adjusted timeline has been presented by the SSFC chair who is seeking an audience with the Board of Regents to argue her personal opinion of how the non-allocable budgets should be decided. This again, reinforces the fact that both the SSFC chair and DoS are aware of the process that MCSC should have been made aware of a long time ago, and is grateful but saddened to rely on hearing from a “third party” that the time to submit a formal request to the chancellor is now. The SSFC Chair unilaterally decided to present the GSSF budgets to your office less than one week after MCSC present to the entire ASM leadership team our intention to pursue the edibility process as far as it can go. Not being approached by the SSFC leadership and ODOS is misleading and is a descriptive account of the intentional negligence of corruption being facilitated by ODOS, as mentioned throughout this letter.
Additionally, because we have no way of knowing what your office is aware of, we feel pressed to bring to your attention a fact that UW students have raised major concern with. The SSFC chair admittedly is working to lead an illegal effort in unethical collusion with members of the SJ and both of the editorial boards of the campus newspapers in a more than six month re-writing plan for the ASM constitution and bylaws to restructure the balances of power. This is given that RSO case to the SJ have exposed the true balance of student power and jurisdiction. This action, again of the concerted group, is highly unethical behavior and in direct avoidance of the proper and required ASM protocol for elected and appointed members to recommend or suggest policy amendments. The proper protocol is to suggest changes through the ASM Rules Committee. UW students see complacent and silent affirmation from the supervising professionals who don’t even choose to advise against these corrupt proceedings. We make these additional points to further detail that we are not simply alleging that MCSC is being exterminated; the PROOF of this legitimate corruption is continuously surfacing.
We hope you have taken notice in our account thus far of how corrupt it is for a group of elected student council representatives to name the committee, “ACC” – ASM Constitution Committee. While these council members know that the public presentation of the committee's name coupled with the SSFC chair as the committees leading spokesperson INTENTIONALLY MISLEADS the student body. The idea that this effort to “improve ASM through a New constitution” has a legitimate root in the current structure of the ASM student government is ridiculous. This corrupt effort was exposed during the student council debate over whether to allow the ‘proposed new constitution’ to be on an election ballot this spring. The student council recognized this unethical act, called it out, but again fell victim to the fear of confronting the SSFC chair’s blatant malfeasance as reasoning for her position, or leadership in decision making to be challenged. If any of this is news to you, it is only evidence that the professional staff advisors and supervisors, (who earn close to $500,000 in student fees annually) are not doing their job appropriately.
The effort of the ‘concerted’ group to illegally re-write the constitution was shut down and denied at a recent ASM Student Council meeting. The same rules that the ‘concerted group’ was trying to illegally push through a non-ASM committee called “ASM Constitution Committee” for bylaw changes have now suddenly been submitted to the SJ via the proper ASM structural protocol for bylaw change – the ASM Rules Committee.
As alluded to previously, the SJ submission of new bylaw revisions includes a distinct new addition. The SJ, specifically Chief Justice Kate Fifield had suggested the removal of the bylaw that automatically sends the decision of RSO eligibility to the ASM Student Council when a funding body has been found guilty of making a decision(s) in a manner that is not in a viewpoint neutral fashion. Viewpoint Neutral Fashion is defined in the ASM bylaw Section 2.01 Viewpoint Neutrality Compliance, and is now being corruptly re-written and replaced by this concerted groups effort to prevent RSOs and student due process rights from being disregarded when an ASM body makes a procedurally incorrect decision to target a group instead of isolating the group based solely on its viewpoint.
Below is the current ASM Bylaw Policy listed in the Section 5: (SJ) of the ASM Bylaws for SJ mandated compliance with the Section 2: (Segregated fees - 2.01 Viewpoint Neutrality Compliance). The 2011 ASM SJ 17 decision lays out the blatant basis for MCSC’s new eligibility hearing.
5.07(3)- Viewpoint Neutrality Complaints
(a)-Any person or organization/program may appeal an eligibility or funding decision on the basis that the decision was not made in a viewpoint neutral manner. A viewpoint neutrality appeal shall go as follows:
(a)i- Funding Body
If a viewpoint neutrality violation is found against the funding body, the Student Judiciary decision shall be delivered to the Student Council who shall hear the request at its first meeting after the decision by the Student Judiciary.
(a)ii-
The Student Council shall make a final decision on the eligibility or budget of the organization in compliance with the Student Judiciary's decision within five school days of the publication of the Student Judiciary's decision.
Above is the text from the current ASM bylaws; below is the text from the bylaw revisions now being proposed through the ASM Rules Committee. This effort is still taking place even after the student council shut down the illegal collusion from justices of the SJ who openly and secretly participated in rewriting SJ bylaws trying to get on a referendum vote by using the ACC to avoid their responsible protocol as elected and appointed officials.
(Bylaw revisions now being proposed by the SJ; underline indicates changes.)
5.05(4)- Special Types of Complaints
Viewpoint Neutrality Complaints
Any person or organization/program may appeal an eligibility or funding decision on the basis that the decision was not made in a viewpoint neutral manner.
A complaint concerning an application of viewpoint neutrality may not be summarily dismissed.
**Pursuant to bylaw 2.01(2)b, procedural correctness is a component of a viewpoint neutral decision. While a procedural error may be a sufficient condition for a viewpoint neutrality error, the finding of a procedural error does not necessarily indicate that a viewpoint neutrality error has occurred.
Should the Student Judiciary find a funding body to have committed a viewpoint neutrality violation against a particular party: The Student Judiciary may forward the funding decision to the ASM Student Council if the panel believes the funding body is incapable of making a viewpoint neutral decision.
The Student Judiciary may remand the funding decision back to the funding body. If a particular member of the funding body is found to have committed a viewpoint neutrality violation while the body corporate remained viewpoint neutral, the Student Judiciary may preclude said member from participating in the funding decision.
The new addition to the bylaws REMOVES the ASM Student Council as the source of designated and automatic accountability for the decision. Through additional corruption, the proposed bylaws reflect the shifting of the primary decision making of where eligibility is to be decided to the SJ by stating that the SJ ‘may’ forward the funding decision to the ASM Student Council “if the panel believes the funding body is incapable of making a viewpoint neutral decision.” The SJ is shifting the power of jurisdictional decision making to itself and away from the student council; a repeated and core strategy of the ‘concerted group’.
Additionally, the SJ in its recommendations creates conflicting bylaws that attempt to override the Section two wording that is a direct result from the Supreme Court rulings that define viewpoint neutral fashion of decision making in two parts: one part procedure and one part taking viewpoint into consideration. Above listed by the (**) is proposed logic that is taken word-for-word from the 2011 ASM SJ 17 case ruling against SSFC where the SJ says that just because SSFC broke the ASM Constitution in deliberate and premeditated action, the SSFC should not be seen as having created a VPN violation because it was just a procedural error and did not take the account of MCSC’s viewpoint into consideration. This logic has been used to ignore the Supreme Court ruling in concluding that the only way that the UW fee funding structure would be seen as viewpoint neutral is if both viewpoints were not taken into consideration and all proper procedures were followed; as manipulating procedure is the oldest and most traditional form of how to exclude people of color from their rights in public administration. Please acknowledge these unethical transgressions as more of what the supervising professional staff should be responsible for and held accountable for the repercussions and negative consequences imposed on UW students looking to improve the campus climate. Below is the Section the SJ has attempted to override in its policy suggestion.
** Section 2. Segregated Fees
Subsection 2.01 - Viewpoint Neutrality Compliance
2.01(1) - Interpretation
(a)-Constitutional Interpretation: The Constitution's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of political ideology shall be interpreted in a manner requiring the ASM to make all Grant Allocation Decisions in a viewpoint neutral fashion. All ASM bodies shall take all actions necessary to comply with these requirements.
(b)-Bylaw and legislation interpretation: These Bylaws shall be interpreted to ensure that all Grant allocation decisions are made in a viewpoint neutral fashion. Any of these Bylaws or legislation that would make or has made a Viewpoint Neutral Financial Decision in anything but a viewpoint neutral fashion is null and void. Both the Student Council and the Student Judiciary shall enforce this requirement.
2.01(2) - Definitions
(a)-Grant Allocation Decision: A Grant Allocation Decision is a decision that results in the allocation of Segregated University Fees to a Registered Student Organization other than an ASM body.
(b)- Viewpoint neutral fashion: A decision is made in a viewpoint neutral fashion where the decision is made: 1) in accordance with any procedural requirements for making the decision; and 2) without considering the viewpoint being expressed by the recipient of the funds.
Lastly, we would like to speak to you regarding the National Conference of Race and Ethnicity (NCORE):
We would like to invite you attend and be recognized at the NCORE workshop presentation of UW Alumni who are presenting to chancellors and chief diversity officers across the nation on the benefits of student-led partnerships in university strategic plans and initiatives to improve campus climate through diversity and multicultural education. The workshop is entitled: The Multicultural Student Coalition (MCSC): A Case Study of Student-led Institutional Change in Creating Diversity and Multicultural Education.
MCSC’s proud UW alumni have carried a wealth of knowledge and experiences into various professional environments where the skills they developed in MCSC and ASM have propelled them to career success. Our alumni all agree that the hard and soft skills they learned in the areas of student fee policy and multicultural competency have played major factors in their upward mobility in each of their respective work environments.
The current students in MCSC are sending our student delegation to this years’ NCORE as a ‘1st of its kind’ -pioneering attempt to present on the phenomenal alumni who as students, gave birth to MCSC as a student-led partnership. This partnership exists to promote and organize the improvement of campus climate through diversity education. They will be joined by our current group of phenomenal students, who face extinction at the hands of a peer-manipulated set of illegal processes that have been coordinated to bring about the end of not just MCSC, but the end of an era of UW student organizing focusing on the strengths and benefits of promoting racial and ethnic educational awareness as a strategy of improving campus climate.
Though this presentation will be stressful if our MCSC continues to be denied eligibility, our UW MCSC alumni and our current MCSC students are committed to the best showing and representing of UW and want you to be present. Perhaps Dr. Damon William should come along as well.
This letter has been long and we thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. It is unfortunate that the hundreds of hours jumping through hoops this year as well as the time put into this letter were not spent more on our homework or the services we exist to provide to the UW student community. This matter is however, of the utmost and urgent importance as several of the members of the student government have been supportive to our claims and that there is blatant evidence of the discrimination targeted at MCSC. ASM Representatives are prepared to attend our meeting with you to give personal accounts of both the corrupt and unethical behaviors. These accounts include that of peers and staff that have led directly to the current state of MCSC eligibility. These council members have asked to be supportive in helping in this matter of preserving MCSC's eligibility and proposed funding and future partnership to the state of racial climate and student government integrity. These Student Council representatives believe and will give their personal accounts of how urgent and dire this situation is and suggestive-solutions of how this ASM environment of ASM sponsored discrimination against student-driven resourcing of multicultural diversity education to build campus climate can be changed going into the future ASM Student Council sessions.
MCSC is not ready to give up on fighting for the rights we have as UW students, and we are counting on your support to continue that fight. Please meet with us for a two hour time period during the week of March 26th -30th at your convenience to dialogue in resolve of these issues. Once again, thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
The MultiCultural Student Coalition
