Having Their Cake?

Inclusive coalition, or smoke-screen to gain funding? For the past two weeks, members of the Undergraduate Council (UC) have been asking just this question in debating whether granting money to an event sponsored by an exclusive, all-female student group conforms to its bylaws. The group in question is the Seneca, which has organized a panel on “Women and Tenure at Harvard” for this Saturday. Because the Seneca, unlike its male counterparts, does not currently own usable event space, it has been searching for off-campus space at which to hold their event. In the meantime, the Seneca has assembled an impressive body of 24 co-sponsoring organizations that have participated in planning the general outlines of the panel. Sounds like an inclusive coalition.

Unfortunately for the Seneca, as a non-recognized, discriminatory student organization it cannot be guaranteed use of classroom facilities for the panel or granted UC dollars. So the Seneca asked the UC for a $1500 grant to help offset the cost of holding the event in the Faculty Club, which is the only venue the Seneca was able to reserve for this Saturday. The Finance Committee (FiCom) of the UC recommended two days ago to grant the event a $1000 stipend, on the condition that the Seneca drop its claims as a “host” of the event and became a simple co-sponsor. However, unless the Seneca can prove that it is not the driving force behind this event—and thus that it does not stand to benefit disproportionately from what are supposed to be democratically-distributed student dollars—the full committee of the UC should vote down the $1000 grant on Sunday.

One of the UC’s bylaws prohibits giving grants to “discriminatory” groups (although FiCom can vote to suspend the rule), and the Seneca falls into this category because it admits no men. Since the money that the UC disburses ultimately comes from the student termbill fee, it is inherently unfair to ask the entire student body to financially support the initiatives of a student group that does not admit members of a particular gender. Money is fungible. Funding any activity of a student group—even if the activity benefits the community at large—effectively funds the student group itself. Any money the UC gives to Seneca projects saves the Seneca money which it can then use on its other initiatives.

For Women and Tenure, an impressive roster of student groups have signed on as co-sponsors to the event, including the Black Students Association, the Radcliffe Union of Students, and numerous undergraduate advocacy groups. Nevertheless, until FiCom outlined the stipulations of its recommendations, the Seneca persisted in advertising itself as a “host” of the event—rightfully so considering the large amount of work its members put in compared to co-sponsors. However, we are still worried that FiCom is ignoring the Seneca’s obvious heavy involvement in the project. If the coalition of student groups—even including unrecognized student groups other than the Seneca—had more at stake in the planning and execution of the event, then the event would pass muster under the UC’s non-discrimination clause. As it is, it seems like the Seneca is merely bowing to FiCom pressure: portraying the semblance of a coalition when in reality it is still the event’s main architect.

So this begs a question. The Seneca chose to hold the event in the Faculty Club, a substantially more expensive venue than any options open to recognized student groups. In an email to The Crimson Staff, Seneca President Jane Kim ’05 said that the group chose to hold the event in the Faculty Club because it is the least expensive, most convenient off-campus space it could find for this Saturday. She explained that the group did not ask any of the co-sponsoring organizations to apply for a UC grant or to book classroom space on its behalf. Kim wrote, “We decided against having recognized co-sponsoring student groups book space or apply for UC grants to maintain The Seneca’s policy of honesty and transparency with the University, the UC, and our peers. In the past, we have encountered complications with co-sponsorships between recognized and unrecognized organizations with regard to University policies.” If this truly is a coalition of student groups, then they should be able to secure classroom space (Science Center lecture halls, for instance, seat more people and cost nothing). If not, as we suspect, then the UC should not fund this event. Or at the very least, the UC should only fund the cost of food and publicity (totaling $500, according to Kim), and nothing more to pay for an unnecessarily costly venue. We respect the difficulties the Seneca has had in the past applying for Harvard classroom space, but that doesn’t make it any more right for the UC to fund a Faculty Club event.

Advocating that FiCom use such discretion between truly inclusive student group coalitions and token ones presents FiCom’s members with a delicate and potentially difficult task. When FiCom believes that an event will bring benefit to the community, it should not deny funding simply because one co-sponsor of the group prohibits members of the opposite sex from joining. But it should not fund such an event when one such group is clearly the lead organizer, and it should not smash open the piggy bank to fund Faculty Club extravagance simply because an organization declined to use reasonable pathways to obtain free space.

Ultimately, then, the onus is on both the UC and the College Dean’s Office (which assigns classroom space) to decide whether a coalition-sponsored event is really as advertised. In the UC’s case, current, ongoing reforms will hopefully lead to more specific definitions about what the UC will and will not fund. Until FiCom meshes its group-based discrimination clause with its project-based funding architecture, there will be no lasting solution. The Dean’s Office must also develop its own, clearly-explicated policies, so that coalition-sponsored events of the future do not overlook cheaper, higher capacity venues out of past experience. Regardless, we want to see continued cooperation between all student groups on events that explore relevant campus issues. The Seneca has taken admirable initiative in planning an event long-delayed, and they deserve our support. We just don’t want to pay for it.