|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Benjamin Ries on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 03:07 PM CDT |
Rob,
The point I'm making is that any group (including a business like Revolution wanting to run events on campus) could claim to be doing an "amount of good" for a "number of students". If you assume that additive "direct good" is being done to whichever students show up, then one must wonder why clubs themselves are not funded on the same principle (per capita basis - more members means the club is doing more total "direct good").
I think that we suspect otherwise. We know that the amount of "good" a club does is
- so subjective that policy mechanisms might not fairly measure it
- not necessarily related to the number of students attending on an additive basis
- subject to deduction of whatever "bad" the club does (equally hard to measure)
Thus, the basic flat-rate funding for clubs; thus the arbitrary definition (Procedure 13) of what does and does not constitute a club that, supposedly, can be trusted to do more subjective "good" than "bad" for students, within limits.
As I say, it may well be arbitrary to suggest that only clubs acting within the bounds of Procedure 13 can be trusted by Feds as able to do significant "good" for students - but can all other organizations that wish to use the campus be individually evaluated on the "good" they do for students, or even on their week-to-week attendence makeup, or the amount of "community goodwill" they provide? Can the Fed Hall booking fee be pro-rated based on how "good" the client is?
-Ben[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
