If this cabal does exist, then (given our university's proclivity for rectifying past injustices) they should be granted official protected status as a (particularly abused) minority. Of course, the notion that such events are frequented en masse by anyone who is not a near-permanent denizen of the second floor of the Mary Graydon Center transcends all but the tales of mythology.

While the average student may have little interest in attending these SC activities, he does bear the responsibility of funding these projects, for every undergraduate is assessed an involuntary activity fee of $73.50 a semester ($147 for the year). Of note, our student government approved an $11 per semester increase last year to adjust for an increase in the consumer price level not the quality of SC events.

To be fair, not every dime appropriated by student government is entirely wasted. It is true that a great deal of the SC budget is allocated for unnecessary stipends for the governing elite, poorly attended events, and the promotion of politically fashionable causes; however, the student activity does pay for the AUTO service, which transports clubs, interns, and traveling students to their desired destinations. In addition, the student subsidized Kennedy Political Union generally hosts a few speakers over the course of the year, which tend to draw significant crowds. SUB, SAC, and the classes and schools tend to also make fairly effective use of their resources.

While one can quibble over which (if any) departments are worth their budgets, there is a larger question that should be posed: Should any of these departments (in addition to clubs and the media board) be subsidized via a coercive activity fee? Under our current system, the university collects the requisite tribute along with tuition payment. The activity fee money is then doled out (barring Student Activities approval) by the Student Confederation, AU Club Council, and Media Board to their respective constituencies. The distribution of these funds is usually reflective of a number of subjective and objective factors; however, almost all departments and organizations are guaranteed to receive at least some funding, and it is not infrequent that an entity s funding is not indicative of the level of demand for its services or the utility that it provides to the campus. In fact, given the general climate of apathy toward SC programming, its budget is usually replete with extensive over-appropriations.

As mentioned, this inefficient and often highly political allocation of money is made possible by the compulsory student activity fee, but what if such a fee did not exist? Essential elements of the student government such as KPU and AUTO could easily be funded by a far lower direct fee or even by user fees. Clubs and associations would have to rely on membership dues, donations and fundraising, which would force them to streamline their expenses and be sure to cater to the interests of their members. Clubs that truly serve no purpose or are generally inactive would not be artificially sustained by the AUCC. In essence, students would decide for themselves, which recreational activi- ties they would like to support (including off-campus ones as well).

Of course, the charge is lobbed that the only folks who have any compunctions over the obligatory activity fee are socially inept. While those who dedicate significant amounts of time considering the fiscal affairs of our student government (or any SC related matter) may have a bit too much time on their hands, it is the average AU student who is fleeced by the compulsory activity fee.

Suppose one considers the situation of an undergraduate who lives off campus. This student may dutifully attend classes while juggling multiple jobs and attending to other non-AU concerns. Wouldn't the money that he contributes to student activities be better spent on utility bills, gas, or internet access?

The same can be said for members of sororities and fraternities. In spite of the criticism that the Greeks may receive, they do not compel anyone to who does not voluntary join to pay their membership fees. Those who opt to pledge either a sorority or a fraternity do so because they believe they will receive a significant amount of recreational utility from this decision. Why should the student government gouge these individuals after they have already invested in one of these organizations? Furthermore, those who may frequent Washington's bars and nightclubs would probably rather see their money go to these ventures instead of SC programming.

A university without a student activity fee (or a greatly reformed one) would allow students to retain their money to invest in the recreation that they receive the most utility from. It would allow the average student to choose whether he desires to endow a club, fraternity, or off campus entity with his resources. If the SC elites are so confident that their programming is highly demanded, they should at least press the Board of Trustees to make the fee voluntary. If their theory is correct, then student activities will lose only the contribution of a few ill-tempered conservatives. However, this policy would never come to pass, for if students were actually granted a choice as to where to invest their money, the SC knows that their bureaucratic regime of wasteful spending would come crashing down.