A recent editorial entitled “Government Policy Against Students’ Rights” displays a vicious lack of intellectual honesty by its authors. This editorial launches a cautionary flare, warning of the approaching creep of anti-democratic forces. The style of this argument resounds endlessly for the intentions and machinations of the authors, a ploy to which they are forced due to a galling lack of substance. Their argument is obnoxious, contrite, and most importantly, a lie.

The Mass Media and MassPIRG (the unnamed “non-profit organization”) are currently funded by student fees. These fees are collected in an “opt-out” manner. Every semester the Bursar sends a bill to my home which, in big bold letters, has a total due amount that includes additional fees for these student organizations. The total is there in black, and it demands more than I actually owe. The bill says that certain fees are waivable, but the form is nonsensical to use. It appears to have been designed by a madman who was flunked out of the I.R.S. school of design. Every semester I carefully review this bill several times, and with much angst I check boxes and complete lines, hoping that I’ve done so correctly for fear that otherwise the Bursar will have my class registrations dropped. This bill is so disgustingly designed that I can’t help but assume that some students pay these waivable fees without any knowledge of their action. It’s as if they continuously vote for Pat Buchanan, to borrow a punch line from recent history.

There are definitely merits to each side of the opt-out versus opt-in debate. A strong and independent school media has, and always will be, a cornerstone of an advanced liberal arts education. That we fund The Mass Media is essential. How we determine the source of this funding should be, and needs to be, open for debate. After all, in class we’re taught to research, question, and to engage our opponents not only vigorously, but, more importantly, with the illuminating luminosity of The Truth. The truth is that House Bill No. 2400 (available online at http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/house/ht02400.htm) does not impinge on student rights’ at all.

In contention is the editorial assumption that HB 2400 will “deny us students our rights to democratically decide for ourselves how we do things on our campuses.” Allegedly, this right will be infringed by those who disallow us to vote every two years on the opt-in versus the opt-out system. These claims are without merit upon examination of the existing law and its proposed amendment. Chapter 15, Section 29(a) of the Mass General Law (available online at http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/15A-29.htm) Provides definitions for the following paragraphs of the bill. This paragraph defines both the terms “waivable fee” and “optional fee” as methods of fund raising. However, this is the last place you will find the words “optional fee”, as no place in this law describes the activities that shall be funded by any “optional fee”. That method of funding is summarily ignored in the rest of the law. Why would the framers of this law author their legislation in this matter? Probably because they had no intention of allowing students to opt-in for funding a law which refers to itself as “use of student fee funds for legislative agents’ (why won’t anyone say MassPIRG?) costs.” HB 2400 would amend paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the existing law. The proposed bill removes all references to waivable fees and replaces them with the optional fee system, while still allowing for a student vote every two years to determine the organizations that are to receive student fee funds.

What rights have we lost? None. Absolutely none. Students aren’t being subjected to some extra legislative bully. As citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which a super-majority of us are, we have the ability to contact our legislators concerning this issue. If you find yourself passionately moved to defend the ability of MassPIRG and The Mass Media to remain funded through an opt-out fee system then please, by all means and in every way possible, express your rights on Beacon Hill. Be Heard. But don’t hide your motivations, your fear that an opt-in system would result in a severe defunding of MassPIRG and The Mass Media, in some cloak and dagger facade.

C.D. Stone, K.R. Vergets, and N.J. Aldrich could have chosen to argue for the merits of an opt-out system over an opt-in system (which could potentially cause quivers in the bottom lines’ of both MassPIRG and The Mass Media). Instead they hid their agenda in a propagandistic assault on the course of free and open debate. Smoke and mirrors were their tactics. “Fear” they screamed, “look away!” Do not “let the methods or who currently is funded by optional fees side-track you from the fundamental purpose of House Bill 2400” they said. And absolutely do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Striking the chords of fear and propping up some phantom boogeyman is a deplorable and despicable method to rally support to your cause.

This is not a challenge to Student Senate President Tuan Pham to pass a resolution in support of House Bill 2400. Instead, I would ask the fear mongers amongst us to re-examine their public bluster. Far too often we allow a fear of victimization to subvert our rational minds and our good will. If there needs to be reform to the current system of funding, engage the other side in open and honest debate. History proves that fear is a powerful motivator of men, but it’s a force of ill repute which does not have any place in a policy debate between democratic men. For, in a world where billions of people are actually denied their basic Human Rights by dictatorial regimes and communist governments, Chicken Little crying foul in this matter shows not just a sickening disregard for the plight of those who actually suffer in the world, it is also a lie.

Nicholas FavoritoPolitical Science Major ’04