Greed for Green?

“See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals.” Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

It’s that time of year again, when your hard-earned AcFee-payer dollars head to the coffers of nearly every sort of organization you can imagine. That Vanderbilt currently funds special interest groups through mandatory activity fees will come as a surprise to nobody. Many of these groups bring worthwhile diversity to the cultural, political, and extracurricular scenes here at Vanderbilt. When groups representing a particular political agenda or ideological viewpoint receive funding, opposite and complementary groups are likewise funded to ensure that a viable marketplace of ideas exists. Consider, for example, that AcFee both funds the Torch, our conservative and libertarian commentary magazine, as well as Orbis, our progressive counterpart. Likewise, the Advocacy Council, which includes College Libertarians, College Republicans, and College Democrats among other groups, receives AcFee funding for the promotion of the marketplace of ideas.

In short, the Student Finance Committee has generally made sure to balance funding among groups that might be deemed partisan or political so that no one voice has an unfair leg up on the others. However, concerns of balance have apparently been thrown out the window with regards to environmental groups. SPEAR received $2,600 in AcFee money for the 2007-2008 school year, an increase from the $2,000 allotted to the organization last year. The recently revived Sierra Club operated in its previous incarnation under the umbrella of the Office of Volunteer Activities, now the Office of Active Citizenship and Service. For an organization covered by OACS today, the allocation of funding is almost certainly a matter of when rather than if, even in the case of organizations with similar purposes.

I am not suggesting that the creation and funding of a pro-pollution group should become Vanderbilt’s top priority. I would, however, encourage Vanderbilt generally and the Student Finance Committee in particular to pay closer attention to putatively apolitical groups such as SPEAR. In October 2006, SPEAR cosponsored a lecture by noted anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott. SPEAR was also behind the push to obtain favorable Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ratings for the Commons buildings, which may have contributed in part to Vanderbilt Dining’s choice to forbid takeaway dining at the Commons Center, a policy decision greeted primarily with grumbling. Likewise, SPEAR coordinated the effort to hire a “sustainability director” at a presumed cost of a high-range five-figure salary.

My concern is not so much that groups like SPEAR and the Sierra Club exist—indeed, they are a vital part of the marketplace of ideas just as any other advocacy group. SPEAR’s exceptional sway with the Vanderbilt administration combined with their AcFee funding, however, should certainly give Vanderbilt students pause. I think most Vanderbilt students would agree that getting recycling bins for dorms, for example, is a reasonable and non-partisan method to encourage students to take personal responsibility for the environment. It is hard to deny, though, that SPEAR has not stopped there: one need only look to the architecture, infrastructure, and logistics of the Commons to see the organization’s influence in action.

By providing funding to an organization that directly lobbies the Vanderbilt administration, and moreover by funding an organization which apparently espouses policies with whom students may not necessarily agree, the Student Finance Committee is in essence using public money to subsidize private aims. Environmentalism is a great thing, but privileging one interpretation of it to the exclusion of others does a disservice to the Vanderbilt community and upsets the ideal level playing field of the marketplace of ideas.