The Bullsheet

This is made in response to the BSU’s recent list of demands that it made to DCGA. I do not have an electronic copy of these demands to submit to either the Denisonian or the Bullsheet for reprinting, but I’m sure that if you know someone on DCGA, they would be able to get you a copy. Let me respond to the allegations and demands of the BSU in the order in which their letter addresses them:

The BSU was funded $40,000 for the Black Men’s Summit (BMS), which was not requested in their 2009 budget. Then, by the BSU’s own account, they came back and asked for more money a second time. The BMS drew in very few people. It was a waste of money, costing the Denison Community $40,000. Not to mention, a ‘Black Men’s Summit’ hardly sounds inclusive of the entire community.

It is true that the Finance Committee did not approve a budget for the BSU, but it is not the case that the FC denied the BSU’s budget requests. Rather, the BSU failed to submit its budget in a timely manner. Having missed the deadline entirely, the BSU claimed that computer virus issues deleted the budget, and yet, when asked for one after the deadline, it could not be immediately produced and, in fact, has still not been produced according to the rules of DCGA, the three-weeks passed deadline notwithstanding. Why is it taking so long? It would seem that, which such an extensive budget, a number of people would have had final copies of a number of sections, which would make reproducing it a quick and simple matter. Furthermore, the BSU failed to submit an executed fiscal responsibility form, a form that is submitted in hard copy. The fact of the matter is this: The BSU failed to draft a budget at all and, as such, was rightly denied funding from DCGA. Instead of admitting that they had missed the deadline and requesting more time, they fabricated a story to buy time and then began making demands.

In light of this, the BSU’s demand that their budget be ‘granted in full’ is nonsense. There is no timely-submitted budget to approve. The BSU get equal rights as a campus organization, not special rights.

Additionally, the BSU demands the restoration of theirs and other minority community Senator seats, whose Senators have willingly resigned. These seats have not been permanently revoked. They will be filled in the next election as is the case with any community seat which is vacated. If the BSU does not want to lose its community seats, it would be well-advised to appoint people who will not resign. Outlook itself went last semester without any senators at all because both of its Senators had to resign; the BSU was hardly clamoring then for Outlook’s senate seats to be restored. In this section of its letter, the BSU does demand that all community senator seats be restored, making it appear as if the BSU is also advocating for the other minority communities as well. However, this advocating is proved disingenuous by the remainder of the BSU’s demands.

In the next section, the BSU demands a permanent seat on the DCGA executive board. It does not, however, also demand that any other minority community (Outlook, Muslim, Asian, Jewish, Hispanic) get a permanent executive seat. They also demand permanent seats on every DCGA community, but not for the other community senators.

Next, the BSU demands increased funding to the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs. Clearly, the BSU misunderstands the role of DCGA and the scope of its authority. DCGA, for those of you in the BSU who drafted this document, funds STUDENT organizations. The OMSA is a Denison University office and no money from DCGA, nor can it.

The BSU’s demand that funding be set aside for the express purpose of retaining students of color sounds fantastic, but it makes no provisions for how such money would be allocated or towards what sorts of programs it would go.

The BSU’s request for a resolution regarding the GE requirements seems reasonable, but really has no bearing to this budget process.

The demand that DCGA re-organize the FC to the BSU specifications is ridiculous. The BSU and every other organization requesting funding is given audience with the FC to present their budgets, and each is also given the opportunity for a question and answer session before the entire Senate regarding its budget. At which meeting, by the way, the BSU staged a sit-in on April 7, 2009, disallowing the remainder of the DCGA-funded organizations who did submit timely budgets their opportunity for audience before the whole Senate.

On the matter of requiring Senators to participate in a Sustained Dialogue group, I would suggest to the BSU that they ask their duly-appointed Senator to introduce such a resolution.
On the issue of the BSU’s demand for a minimum of $50,000, it needs to be noted that no student organization is given a floor for funding. The BSU is afforded those same rights, not special ones. Again, perhaps the gay, Muslim, Jewish, Asian, Hispanic or other communities should also get a minimum amount of funding. But, again, the BSU is interested only in its own funding, to the detriment of the other minority communities and, to be sure, the entire Dension student body writ large. The money that DCGA allocates is our ‘Student Activity Fee’ that we pay every year. It is our money that they want, but it is also our rules that they do not believe should apply to them, despite the fact that they have demonstrated their ability to follow them in the past.

Finally, DCGA cannot purchase a van for the OMSA. Again, the OMSA is a Denison office, not DCGA-funded. Additionally, the BSU letter does not even make an effort to justify such a ludicrous demand.

The DCGA and its FC have not voted inconsistently at all. There are policies in place, which the BSU managed, without problem, to meet last fiscal year. Having failed to adhere to those policies this year has its consequences. Perhaps it will be detrimental to Denison to not have any BSU events in the coming year, but that is not the fault of the FC or the University, but instead, falls on the heads of the BSU itself. In my opinion, the BSU’s self-serving argument that, unless the rules are bent for it, everyone else in DCGA is biased and racist is childish and, worse yet, selfish and morally reprehensible. This is not an issue of race, it is an issue of policy. Moreover, it is the BSU that has disrespected the community by first failing to abide by the rules and then demanding that the rules be changed to accommodate them.

In this past year (2009), the BSU requested more money (by $8,000) than did UPC, a DCGA-funded organization which promotes the inclusion of every Denisonian, without regard to race. The BSU last year was granted $77,597, 50% of its request and more than any other DCGA-funded organization with the exception of UPC. UPC’s own budget was slashed to 78% of its original request. And still, the BSU came back asking for more ($40,000 more), which it was granted, giving the BSU 75% of its original budget request. And still, the BSU came back asking for more. Enough is enough. More than enough concessions have been made. Every other DCGA-funded organization spent weeks this year compiling their budgets, forsaking friends and activities, in order to meet the DCGA deadline. The BSU’s argument that computer problems caused the electronic submission of their budget seems to be an outright lie, but is irrelevant nonetheless. Lacking the appropriate hard documentation and advisor approval, the FC could do no more than it did. It did not even have the power to deny a budget. It simply had nothing to hear. Furthermore, the lack of these hard copies only bolsters the proposition that no budget ever existed.

The BSU is not too big to fail. The incompetent handling of its budget has had its consequence. The BSU is afforded rights equal to those of every other campus organization, but its ‘demand’ for special rights should offend everyone.

John Schaffranek (schaff_j)
Class of 2009