| Author |
Message |
Mike
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:07 pm
Post subject: Michael Moore and the Scandal of Student Fees |
|
|
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15914
Michael Moore and the Scandal of Student Fees
By David French
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 11, 2004
This fall, in one of the most spectacularly hyped and unsuccessful
political efforts in recent memory, leftist filmmaker Michael Moore
barnstormed America's campuses in an effort to increase the youth
vote. In speech after speech, he begged, pleaded, and even bribed
students (with offers of ramen noodles and underwear) to get to the
polls and vote for John Kerry.
Although Moore's effort failed (not only was George W. Bush
re-elected, but the proportion of "youth" voters did not increase in
2004), it was certainly lucrative. He charged most colleges between
$30,000 and $40,000 per appearance and appeared at multiple colleges
in battleground states across the country. According to Moore's
website, his "Slacker Tour" featured appearances at 63 cities, "mostly
on campus." While it is impossible to determine Moore's fee for each
of those appearances (on occasion, he did appear for free), it is easy
to see that the Slacker Tour brought Moore a considerable amount of
money.
And much of that money was paid to him illegally.
The illegality was not Moore's. There is no legal problem with a
speaker accepting large honoraria from colleges. In fact, large
honoraria are commonplace and may be paid to speakers on the left or
right. The problem was not the fact of the payment but the source of
the funds.
The funding for these appearances often came from the "student
activity fee," a mandatory fee often assessed on students at both
public and private universities. The justification for these mandatory
fees (which can be as high as $500 per semester, per student) is the
funding of student organizations and other kinds of "student
activities." The goal is to enhance the educational experience by
providing students with a wide range of extracurricular activities,
including intramural sports leagues, cultural centers, and various
student organizations.
Despite the laudable goals of student activity fee programs, they are
often hijacked by political activists who use the millions of dollars
of student fee money to provide massive subsidies to leftist political
causes. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (better
known as FIRE) has received dozens of complaints regarding the misuse
of student fee funds. At one university, the College Democrats
received seven times the funding of the College Republicans. At
another university, a professor reported that upwards of 80% of all
student fee money goes to explicitly left-wing organizations. Michael
Moore's speaking fee reportedly accounted for one-third of the total
funds reserved for student organizations at one western college. The
list could go on.
All of this brings us back to the law. According to the Supreme Court,
a public university student activity fee is legal only if the funds
are dispensed on a viewpoint neutral basis. Viewpoint neutral does not
mean "without a viewpoint." It means that a university cannot favor
one viewpoint over another when dispensing student activity fee funds.
A university can (and must) fund explicitly partisan or religious
student organizations, but it cannot fund or favor only those groups
that the university likes. A university can use student activity fees
to pay Michael Moore, but it must not do so at the expense of groups
or speakers who have alternative political views.
As politically active students turn their attention from the
presidential election, they should fix their sights on the imbalance
and injustice of the student activity fee. It is simply wrong for a
university to force its students to subsidize opinions they abhor
while denying those students equal access to student fee funds. As
countless electoral contests have demonstrated, money can equal power
in the contest for ideas, and it is high time that colleges and
universities provided equal access to dissenting views.
Because the law is clear, students can break the student fee monopoly
at public schools by following a few, simple steps:
First, request a copy of your school's student fee funding guidelines.
If those guidelines are vague or provide the student fee funding board
(whether elected or appointed) with broad discretion to grant funding
requests with little or no guidance, than those guidelines are most
likely unconstitutional. It is perfectly acceptable to impose funding
restrictions based on viewpoint neutral criteria (such as club size or
activity level), but it is not acceptable for student fee funding
boards to give themselves broad power to grant funding requests
without reference to explicit criteria.
Second, request a copy of your school's actual student fee funding
records. Virtually every state has an open records law that requires
state institutions to make certain kinds of records available upon
request. Student fee funding records cannot be hidden from students.
If the actual records show large disparities in funding grants, there
is strong evidence of viewpoint discrimination.
A note of caution: it is not viewpoint discrimination if large groups
are given larger grants than small groups; nor is it viewpoint
discrimination for a group to be given a smaller grant if it requests
a smaller grant. If the records reveal that conservative groups
consistently make smaller grant requests than leftist organizations,
then conservative organizations should increase their grant requests
and see if the actual awards increase to equivalent levels.
Finally, if your research reveals that funding guidelines are vague or
if student fee awards are discriminatory, contact FIRE or Students for
Academic Freedom. Universities cannot justify viewpoint
discrimination, and FIRE or SAF will make universities comply with the
law. With a bit of courage and persistence, the "Slacker Tour" of 2008
may be very different – perhaps featuring an actual debate rather than
a one-sided leftist propaganda campaign.
David French is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights
in Education.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LISA SMITH
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 am
Post subject: Re: Michael Moore and the Scandal of Student Fees |
|
|
interesting
--
LISA SMITH
"Mike" <yared22311@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd3bf67d.0411120846.a005763@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15914
Michael Moore and the Scandal of Student Fees
By David French
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 11, 2004
This fall, in one of the most spectacularly hyped and unsuccessful
political efforts in recent memory, leftist filmmaker Michael Moore
barnstormed America's campuses in an effort to increase the youth
vote. In speech after speech, he begged, pleaded, and even bribed
students (with offers of ramen noodles and underwear) to get to the
polls and vote for John Kerry.
Although Moore's effort failed (not only was George W. Bush
re-elected, but the proportion of "youth" voters did not increase in
2004), it was certainly lucrative. He charged most colleges between
$30,000 and $40,000 per appearance and appeared at multiple colleges
in battleground states across the country. According to Moore's
website, his "Slacker Tour" featured appearances at 63 cities, "mostly
on campus." While it is impossible to determine Moore's fee for each
of those appearances (on occasion, he did appear for free), it is easy
to see that the Slacker Tour brought Moore a considerable amount of
money.
And much of that money was paid to him illegally.
The illegality was not Moore's. There is no legal problem with a
speaker accepting large honoraria from colleges. In fact, large
honoraria are commonplace and may be paid to speakers on the left or
right. The problem was not the fact of the payment but the source of
the funds.
The funding for these appearances often came from the "student
activity fee," a mandatory fee often assessed on students at both
public and private universities. The justification for these mandatory
fees (which can be as high as $500 per semester, per student) is the
funding of student organizations and other kinds of "student
activities." The goal is to enhance the educational experience by
providing students with a wide range of extracurricular activities,
including intramural sports leagues, cultural centers, and various
student organizations.
Despite the laudable goals of student activity fee programs, they are
often hijacked by political activists who use the millions of dollars
of student fee money to provide massive subsidies to leftist political
causes. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (better
known as FIRE) has received dozens of complaints regarding the misuse
of student fee funds. At one university, the College Democrats
received seven times the funding of the College Republicans. At
another university, a professor reported that upwards of 80% of all
student fee money goes to explicitly left-wing organizations. Michael
Moore's speaking fee reportedly accounted for one-third of the total
funds reserved for student organizations at one western college. The
list could go on.
All of this brings us back to the law. According to the Supreme Court,
a public university student activity fee is legal only if the funds
are dispensed on a viewpoint neutral basis. Viewpoint neutral does not
mean "without a viewpoint." It means that a university cannot favor
one viewpoint over another when dispensing student activity fee funds.
A university can (and must) fund explicitly partisan or religious
student organizations, but it cannot fund or favor only those groups
that the university likes. A university can use student activity fees
to pay Michael Moore, but it must not do so at the expense of groups
or speakers who have alternative political views.
As politically active students turn their attention from the
presidential election, they should fix their sights on the imbalance
and injustice of the student activity fee. It is simply wrong for a
university to force its students to subsidize opinions they abhor
while denying those students equal access to student fee funds. As
countless electoral contests have demonstrated, money can equal power
in the contest for ideas, and it is high time that colleges and
universities provided equal access to dissenting views.
Because the law is clear, students can break the student fee monopoly
at public schools by following a few, simple steps:
First, request a copy of your school's student fee funding guidelines.
If those guidelines are vague or provide the student fee funding board
(whether elected or appointed) with broad discretion to grant funding
requests with little or no guidance, than those guidelines are most
likely unconstitutional. It is perfectly acceptable to impose funding
restrictions based on viewpoint neutral criteria (such as club size or
activity level), but it is not acceptable for student fee funding
boards to give themselves broad power to grant funding requests
without reference to explicit criteria.
Second, request a copy of your school's actual student fee funding
records. Virtually every state has an open records law that requires
state institutions to make certain kinds of records available upon
request. Student fee funding records cannot be hidden from students.
If the actual records show large disparities in funding grants, there
is strong evidence of viewpoint discrimination.
A note of caution: it is not viewpoint discrimination if large groups
are given larger grants than small groups; nor is it viewpoint
discrimination for a group to be given a smaller grant if it requests
a smaller grant. If the records reveal that conservative groups
consistently make smaller grant requests than leftist organizations,
then conservative organizations should increase their grant requests
and see if the actual awards increase to equivalent levels.
Finally, if your research reveals that funding guidelines are vague or
if student fee awards are discriminatory, contact FIRE or Students for
Academic Freedom. Universities cannot justify viewpoint
discrimination, and FIRE or SAF will make universities comply with the
law. With a bit of courage and persistence, the "Slacker Tour" of 2008
may be very different - perhaps featuring an actual debate rather than
a one-sided leftist propaganda campaign.
David French is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights
in Education. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jake
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:03 am
Post subject: Re: Michael Moore and the Scandal of Student Fees |
|
|
Get over yourself. Bunny pants stole the election again and there is
proof of vote manipulation and widespread fraud. Just wait and we'll
see what happens.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:02 am
Post subject: Re: Michael Moore and the Scandal of Student Fees |
|
|
Michael Moore did not offer ramen noodles and underwear to students
that would go out and vote for John Kerry. He offered it to students
to promised to go vote. do your research, there was an increase in
youth voters from ages of 18-24 (all college aged kids). I can not
give MM the credit for all of this, PDiddy and his "VOTE OR DIE"
campaign was extremely successful. all I ask is you do your research
before you post...hahaha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rational Beaver
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
