This year, the ASSU Senate Appropriations Committee has undertaken an unprecedented effort to reduce student groups’ special fees budgets. For the sake of full disclosure, I am a member of one of these groups, the Society for International Affairs at Stanford (SIAS); our proposed budget was cut by 67 percent, from $24,000 to $8,000. My group’s situation is far from unique; Basmati Ras requested $16,000 and the Appropriations Committee recommended $10,380; FLiCKS requested $76,692 and was recommended $67,742; The Bridge requested $9,201, but was recommended $4,691. And this is only a small sampling of the cuts made by the Appropriations Committee.

In some cases, these cuts may encourage efficiency among student groups, forcing them to do more with less. In others, they cripple the ability of groups to complete their core functions. From what I have gathered, the Senate Appropriations Committee bases these cuts on several assertions. First, substantial increases in special fees in recent years have put undue strain on students’ budgets. Second, because of these increases, more students have been requesting refunds, creating a difficult fiscal situation for the ASSU and student groups. These assertions are based on flawed logic, and the actions taken by the committee using this logic threaten the existence and function of student groups at Stanford.

According to an op-ed by Senate Appropriations Chair Anton Zietsman in The Daily last week, students’ activities fees have increased from $96 per student per quarter three years ago to $119 now. This means that students are paying $69 more per year now than they did three years ago on special fees. Students also are paying $2,580 more per year in tuition now than they did three years ago. Increases in special fees only function as 2.6 percent of the total increase. So has this increase in student activities fee ($23 per quarter) put a noticeable undue strain on students budget? In most cases, probably not, especially given that students on full financial aid do not have to pay the student activities fee regardless of the increase. It is my belief that, when taken in the context of total increases, the slight increases in special fees over the last three years have not put a noticeable or significant strain on Stanford students.

Mr. Zietsman argues that because of this strain, student refund rates have gone way up. But this is not the case. More students aren’t requesting refunds because special fees has gone up $23 per quarter, but because they have only realized this year that they could even get refunds. Part of this increased awareness is due to the flyer campaigns by the Stanford Conservative Society. If students can get money without seeing any decrease in their quality of life, they will do it. Reducing special fees by $10 or more a quarter will not reduce the number of refund requests.

I will be the first to admit that the previous ASSU Senate’s special fees policies were unsustainable. Student groups should not be able to receive a 10-percent increase plus inflation every year without petitioning. But the Senate Appropriations Committee’s policies and cuts are disproportionate to the problem. Their fiscal conservatism based on flawed logic and ideology threatens the existence of many student groups at Stanford, putting an impediment on the ability of these groups to provide for their members and the Stanford community at large.

Peter Davis ‘11