Schaff: SGB should allow gray area into decision-making

In politics, it’s often attractive to draw crisp, straight lines through issues muddled with gray areas. In politics, it’s often attractive to draw crisp, straight lines through issues muddled with gray areas. But whatever emotions wielding the mighty sword of simplicity might evoke, policymakers who ignore the subtleties in their environments do so dangerously, both for themselves and, more importantly, for citizens.

Herman Cain tried it in July, when, annoyed by the complex nature of the U.S. tax system, he trumpeted the seductively simple 999 tax plan. Now after the implosion of his colorful presidential candidacy, it appears Cain just didn’t devote the time and focus to appreciate what damage 999 would do not only to middle-income families, but also to the viability of federal revenues. Trying to decorate himself with gray-area-cutting accolades, Cain looked like an ignorant fool in the end, his blind ambition poised to hurt millions of average Americans.

Cain’s example should be learned from and avoided by people in power, particularly Pitt’s Student Government Board.

Over the past two weeks, the SGB has turned away three student organizations that attended Tuesday Board meetings to request funding for trips during Spring Break. On Feb. 7, Board President James Landreneau discouraged Panther Parkour club from officially requesting $1,966 to fund a trip to Washington, and last week the Board denied outright requests by the Women’s Fast-Pitch Softball Club and the men’s club baseball team for money to attend competitions in Florida ($4,655.29 and $9,019.75, respectively).

The justification for these funding denials goes as follows: In contrast to the decisions of previous Boards, the 2012 Board will not fund out-of-state trips — especially club sports practices — that conflict with the Alternative Break program, as is stated in the 2012 SGB Allocations Manual. In addition, “Practicing over Spring Break is seen as a vacation paid for by SGB,” Landreneau said in a phone interview.

This Spring Break funding policy is flawed, and Board members had better acknowledge it.

Granted, the Spring Break funding policy could be described as an admirable effort on the part of the SGB — Board members are trying to save students’ money for what they believe to be more legitimate uses. At first glance, that’s good government doing good work. But when you look closer, it’s clear that the Board has dangerously applied a one-size-fits-all rule — with similarly problematic one-size-fits-all understanding — to Spring Break funding requests, dismissing the inevitable gray area to the potential detriment of students. Remember, the wording of the Allocations Manual is not holy or immutable, and in this case it definitely shouldn’t be.

The SGB must be careful about how much it pushes Student Affairs programs it doesn’t control. Sure, Pitt’s involving students in service projects gives us one reason to admire this University. Accordingly, someone ought to promote student awareness of and participation in Alternative Break. And if the SGB decides to join the promotion, that’s fine — it just crosses a line when it tries to boost participation by blanket-banning funds for non-Alternative Break activities.

Why? Because the idea that any particular type of trip — for club sports, service or really anything — constitutes direct competition with Alternative Break under all circumstances, and therefore cannot be funded, is silly. Student organizations are capable of coming up with ways to spend their time that are: 1) legitimate, and 2) nothing like the experience offered by Alternative Break. The SGB should respect these ways in which student organizations choose to use their time and energies; it should not instead hold a University-sponsored Spring Break activity above all possible student-generated activities. Furthermore, there is no evidence that SGB’s funding Spring Break activities in past years somehow deprived Alternative Break of participants, and nor should there be: Can you really call baseball competitions in Florida and trail restoration in Tennessee close substitutes for the typical individual? If you can, you’re probably a politician.

It should be noted that part of President Landreneau’s justification has merit: Allocations recipients could abuse their privileges and use our Student Activities Fee to bankroll their Spring Break sex-on-the-sands debauchery. This is a real risk, but, once again, the Board prescribes a far-from-ideal blanket solution. Considering how banning Spring Break funding across the board serves the responsible and irresponsible clubs the same punishment, the policy resembles swatting a fly with a shotgun — you eliminate your problem all right, as long as you don’t care about what else you’ve eliminated.

“This is something we have to look at in extreme detail,” Landreneau said in a phone interview, referring to the Spring Break funding issue. He’s right. I just hope his Board pays attention to the uniqueness of such “details” that each allocations request presents, as opposed to applying the same exclusionary rule to everyone. It’s time to put the gray into student government.

Write Matt Schaff at matthew.schaff@gmail.com.