Editorial: SGB should abandon Spring Break funding precedent

Interested in sending your student organization to Washington, D.C., this Spring Break? How… Interested in sending your student organization to Washington, D.C., this Spring Break? How about competing in a club sports tournament? Regardless of your plans for the following week, don’t expect to receive any money from the Student Government Board.

For the first time in several years, SGB has denied groups funding for any trips that supposedly conflict with Alternative Break, a University-sponsored program that assigns students to community service projects across the country. Even when organizations request money for non-philanthropic trips, as the Women’s Fast-Pitch Softball Club and men’s club baseball did two weeks ago, the Board has remained inflexible.

Although adhering to a standardized allocations process is important, this is a clear case of rules trumping reason — or, more specifically, Pitt interests trumping student interests.

Alternative Break appears to be a well-planned, well-intentioned initiative, but promoting it to the exclusion of all other programs seems counterintuitive. Not only will students begin to resent this bias, but they’ll also be deprived of valuable opportunities to pursue extracurricular activities — opportunities the University doesn’t yet provide.

Furthermore, only five out of 80 slots in the Alternative Break roster remained open as of press time; two programs — Camp Sequanota in Jennerstown, Pa., and the Youth Service Opportunities Project in Washington, D.C. — had already reached a maximum number of volunteers. Even if participating in these projects were the only funding–worthy Spring Break activity, many students might still be excluded.

In any case, it’s unlikely that a plurality of club members will register for Alternative Break if SGB prevents them from going on another trip. The members of the Women’s Fast-Pitch Softball Club, for instance, might not consider public service as great of a priority as training or competing; the same holds true for men’s club baseball. Previous Board members seemed to realize as much — in 2011 and 2010, according to Allocations Committee Chair Michael Nites, SGB granted both groups’ funding requests.

As for the fear that organizations will use Spring Break funds to goof off on a beach, there are several ways of determining whether or not they’re putting SGB money to good use — asking them to provide receipts for all their major purchases, for instance.

Ultimately, ensuring that students participate in Alternative Break is a priority of the University, not SGB. Rather than attempting to boost enrollment in a program that they don’t even oversee, Board members should evaluate the merits of funding requests on an individual basis. A nuanced decision-making process, not arbitrary guidelines in the 2011-2012 allocations manual, should dictate which student organizations can fulfill their Spring Break plans.