If you had a penny for every time a professor seemed unwilling to give you a well-deserved “A,” or a potential employer acted like she had better things to do than interview another desperate college student, you could probably earn yourself a quarter — hopefully not enough to buy yourself a soda. You would not, however, be able to prove that they did it because of a personal bias against you.

As much as they sometimes should, things like dirty looks, bad attitude or negative body language do not really hold sufficient legal weight to prove that someone committed a transgression. The Campus Women’s Center begs to differ. After being denied its third appeal against SSFC on the grounds that its services did not provide benefits for the entirety of the student body, CWC issued a viewpoint neutrality complaint against the committee, based on Vice Chair Michael Romanesko and Secretary Matt Manes’ apparent unwillingness to reconsider CWC’s eligibility for funds. Although the complaint, and with it CWC’s entire case, was dismissed in December, the Associated Students of Madison’s Student Judiciary agreed last week to allow the center a fifth appeal of its case, this time to rethink the validity of the viewpoint neutrality complaint.

While we do not doubt the CWC’s assertion Romanesko and Manes appeared less than enthused to give the case a second hearing, we do take issue with the basis of the claims. There’s really no way to prove that SSFC was not in the right frame of mind to deal with the complaint, especially since nobody hurled any fighting words at its services or did anything that would provide tangible proof of a bias against the organization.

The fact of the matter is that there is currently insufficient evidence to convince those who voted against CWC’s first and second appeals — the votes did not change after the second appeal — to improve the organization’s fate for next school year.

This most recent appeal has hinged on an ASM bylaw requiring any case involving viewpoint neutrality cannot be summarily dismissed. So, even though SSFC has already dismissed the case as having no merit, it is now taking it up again because of the bylaw. Not only would this case not receive an additional appeal on the same grounds in a court of law, but also the appeal is made further unnecessary by the fact that nothing in the case has changed to provide more evidence for its reconsideration.

Further, CWC failed to demonstrate that more than 50 percent of its allotted dollars went toward direct services, even if the way it calculated its expenditures involved a misunderstanding of how the spending data was to be collected and measured.

Perhaps part of the problem with this, and part of the reason why this case has been so drawn out, is the fact that SSFC lacks a clearly outlined appeals process, which naturally makes it more difficult to determine whether a group has received a proper appeal. That’s something to work on (hint, hint).

But the point remains that, as of right now, nothing has been added that will push CWC’s case forward. So maybe it’s time to realize that the fifth appeal, like the third and fourth, probably won’t be the charm.