While much of the recent debate over segregated fees involves viewpoint-neutrality and the confusion of this principle with relative worth, perhaps more important is the practical alternatives which could usurp the entire debate.

Many beneficiaries of the current system attempt to persuade objectors that the only alternative to the current system is an opt-out system.

The primary problem with this system is that seg-fee beneficiaries are first looking to stabilize their cash flow from segregated fees. The way to do this is to half-implement a seemingly significant change, but it does not actually change anything. Therefore, the goal is not to fix the system, but to punish objectors so much that no change actually takes place.

From what I can glean from these individuals, an opt-out system would involve students requesting that they not pay for a portion of the tuition bill that they would normally be required to pay. The reason for my vagueness is that there is a confusion of terms.

First of all, there is an issue as to when in time this request would take place. If it were to take place on the tuition bill, then the objections would cause major headaches, as cash outflow would already have begun. If the request were to take the form of a refund, it would most likely involve extreme complexities that only the most diligent would be willing to endure.

Next, many plans for an opt-out system include forcing objectors to drop all segregated fee services, such as Recreational Sports and University Health Services along with the student-government fee. Not only is this proposal repugnant because it suggests that student government is as legitimate as UHS, but also because it raises severe liability issues should an objector be refused basic health services because of his or her beliefs.

The best way to deal with the issue of objectors and the rising cost of defending the system is not to increase the level of coercion in the system but to reduce it. This is why an opt-in system is much more reasonable.

There are many ways of implementing such a system.

The first step is for the university to distinguish student-group funding from the rest of the seg-fee budget. This will clear things up for students who incorrectly think that if ASM dies, their bus pass will cease to exist.

The reality is that to most student organizations and services, ASM is a burden, not a lifeline.

The next step is to figure out collection. The problem with having a list of student organizations that tuition-paying individuals choose from to fund is not the abomination of direct democracy it represents, but the issue of students who do not check a particular service but still use its services. This is known as the “free rider” problem.

Student government as it currently exists is not representative of students but of student organizations. There seems to be few reasons why this relationship should not be recognized and embraced in such a way that the free rider problem could be minimized.

A less coercive way, yet possibly coercive enough for the current beneficiaries, is to create a formal student-organization parliament. The representatives from each student organization would be, based upon either fundraising ability or membership rolls, allocated a particular number of voting members.

The key aspect to this system is student organizations and, more significantly, average students would not be required to join this parliament. Since the university seems to be intent on monitoring the cash flows of student organizations, and those recipients do not care as long as the money keeps flowing like wine, there seems to be little drive for requiring this proposed body to collectively fundraise on its own. Therefore, the idea would be to have the entire student-organization conglomerate have a major promotional drive in the first few weeks of school. Here, the method of collection would be a single box on the tuition bill where students would either choose to pay an extra $100 for student-organization activity or not. Those who do not would not be able to participate in the activities of the conglomerate. Those who do would be able to control the allocation of those fees based upon their student-organization representation in parliament. It is not that there is a lack of coherent alternatives out there. The problem is that student government is content to hold its power, student organizations are content with ballooning budgets, and the administration for the most part keeps its hands clean while it has a bug in the budgets of every significant student group on campus. Too bad it will take a man like Southworth or his follower four years down the road taking the system continually to the courts to actually effect the change that will be needlessly difficult.