With Cornell University already increasing tuition by 3.6% and the COVID-19 pandemic taking an economic toll, one would hope that the Student Assembly would allocate its money more carefully. The truth is that the Student Assembly has not allocated your money responsibly, covering for it by raising effective taxes on ordinary Cornellians.
Take the 2020 Student Assembly Budget, for example. When allocating money, members of the Student Assembly leadership do not even recount the Assembly’s actual proposed expenditures. During an August 29 meeting, there was a dispute regarding the allocation of $50,000 to “special projects.” The SA President amended the amount to $33,500, but no indication was given either by the leadership or the official SA Budget as to where the remaining $16,500 was reallocated. Additionally, too much of the Student Assembly’s budget was placed under the Executive Committee’s control. Several representatives, including Osai Egharevba, asked what the rationale was for moving $50,000 of “special projects” funding to the control of the Executive Committee. Then-College of Arts and Sciences representative, Julian Kroll, also asked the then SA President what an additional $1,000 allocated to the Executive Committee would be used for. The response was that “they typically don’t use it, and that it will be put into special projects at a later date if it is not used.” For a group that constantly decries asymmetric power structures, the Student Assembly has surrendered too much of its financial power to a central authority: the Executive Committee.
The Student Assembly has also been known to spend student funds in, one would say, some interesting ways. Resolution 45 amended the 2020 Budget to allocate $5000 for a Student Assembly gala. The Assembly also allocated 8.3% of its funds to the Cornell Concert Commission, $80,000 of which was spent on the (albeit hilarious) virtual “Slope Day” concert. And Resolution 14, which created the Office of Student Government Relations, allocated $10,000 for “lobbying trips” to Albany and Washington D.C. for the president and executive vice president of the Student Assembly. Combining these instances of wasteful spending alone, the Student Assembly spent $95,000. This is enough to pay for the Student Activities Fee of 404 students.
To cover this spending, the Student Assembly raises your Student Activities Fee (SAF), an effective tax on every Cornell student, regardless of financial need. This year, the Student Assembly increased the SAF by 40%, transferring these collected funds to the tier-system. The question is, why must students give their money to the Student Assembly?
In this difficult and turbulent time, it would be foolish to say that the Student Assembly or the SAFC understand the needs of every student, let alone manage students’ individual finances. College students are more than capable of deciding which clubs they want to support. That is why I unveiled the “Big Red Dividend” during my campaign for Freshman Representative last year. Modified for the present circumstances, it would allow students to spend their Student Activities Fee on any club or organization that they wished to support. In addition to allowing students to make more fiscally responsible decisions, this plan would have allayed concerns about the use of student funds for political purposes.
Funds from the SAF have been used to support causes that have been opposed by a significant proportion of the student body, a recent example being the Class Councils’ 2019 Valentine’s Gala for Planned Parenthood. Under the “Big Red Dividend” plan, a pro-life student’s money would not be spent on a group which promotes the accessibility of abortion; netiher would a pro-choice student’s money be spent on supporting a pro-life group. Both individuals would still retain an important power of political advocacy: the power of the purse. Students should be free and encouraged to support the clubs they want to support, just as adults donate to the political party, charity, or community organization of their choice.
When compared to the bureaucratic planning of the Student Assembly and the SAFC, a decentralized “Big Red Dividend” does not seem so bad. The dividend, rather than taxing students, gives them back control of their finances, both fiscally and ideologically. Although a candidate has yet to adopt this as a part of a platform, I hope that they do so. Perhaps, the student politicians at Willard Straight will hand back financial control to their peers.
