The Stanford student body should remain skeptical of the coming ASSU elections, on April 6-7, considering the disaster of last year’s race. Most of the hype surrounding last year’s election involved the inappropriate use of the Class of 2004 e-mail list to endorse Mikey Lee. As a result the Undergraduate Senate voted to overturn the election. However, The Stanford Daily also reported more misconduct in June, uncovering nearly $200 of special fee money that the Black Student Union (BSU) illegally used to fund Ajani Husbands and Alyssa Schwartz’s 2004 executive campaign.

The current Co Chair of the BSU, Michael Brown II, has assured The Review that “nothing of a similar sort should ever happen again.” Nevertheless, the number of BSU-affiliates on the Undergraduate Senate, the funding of events related to Black Liberation Month, the success of ethnically-oriented student organization in obtaining general fee money, and the grotesque size of the BSU’s food budget raise legitimate concerns.

Of the fifteen Stanford students that comprise the Undergraduate Senate, five are currently affiliated—in some capacity—with the BSU. Four of the five serve on the ASSU Senate Appropriation Committee, the organization charged with recommending the amount of money allocated to Stanford’s extracurricular groups—the BSU among them. In fact, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Dan Stringer, formerly managed the BSU’s finances. Seeing that the specific allocations of General Fee funding are not approved by the student body, many appropriations to student groups are totally subject to the whims of the sitting senators. Acknowledging the seemingly disproportionate representation of the black student body, one would certainly expect the BSU and related organizations to have great success in receiving ASSU funding. In fact, four of the five senators affiliated with the BSU routinely vote inline with African American student organizations.

Only Dan Stringer abstained in the Senate’s approval of the BSU Special Fees budget. Also, when the Black Liberation Month student organization (BLM) asked the Undergraduate Senate to approve an increase in funding to cover an abnormally expensive poster, senators Adrian Boscolo-Hightower and Shani Fregia (both affiliated with the BSU) came to the rescue. During the Feb ruary 1 Senate meeting, both clearly advocated allocating $4 per poster for the BLM—a 220 percent increase over the Senate’s official rate of $1.25. The measure passed, and the BLM received $1,100 for what Fregia referred to as “more than just a poster” during the Senate meeting.

One might think that advocating and voting for measures that directly benefit such organizations would qualify as a conflict-of-interest. However, Senator Omar Shakir does not believe that the five BSU-affiliated senators are guilty of any wrongdoing. Shakir, who regularly abstains on votes related to the Muslim Student Awareness Network (of which he is the financial officer), acknowledges that “it is not…a conflict of interest to follow the policies one believes in, even if shaped by one’s experience.”

At the same rate, Shakir recognizes the apprehensiveness of the situation: “From an outside perspective, it looks fishy. If I wasn’t a Senator and didn’t work with these people, I would be suspicious. But, as someone that works with them almost everyday, I know they are honest people who genuinely care about doing what is best for the student body.” Shakir also mentioned that all of the five senators approved the BSU’s Special Fee budget after a $10,000 cut, despite the BSU’s disapproval. Interestingly, several groups, including the BSU, asked for money to fund events related to “Black Liberation Month.”

Americans traditionally observe Black Liberation Month (also called “Black History Month”) in February, commemorating the leaders of both the abolitionist and civil rights movement. Although the importance of celebrating this event is irrefutable, the budgets of several African-American groups on campus are riddled with Black Liberation Month expenses. The BSU, the Stanford Black Pre-Law Society, and the Black Psychology Association all requested and received funding for the event. Meanwhile, another group completely devoted to the commemoration of the month, the BLM (the acronym distinguishes it from the actual month), is on the General Fees budget this year. Taking note of all this, one must wonder how these groups avoid violating the Office of Student Activities’ regulation that groups must “demonstrate an unmet need that is not duplicated by another student group or campus department.”

Although neither the financial manager nor president of the BLM responded to inquires from The Review, Brown provided some insight: “During BLM, it is important for the BSU to have a presence and put on programming for the community just as I can see why the Black Community Services Center would feel it is important to put on their own programming, as both are major institutions. Considering that Black Liberation Month is a month long, there is room for multiple groups to participate and need funding for celebrating Black History Month to the fullest.” Brown also pointed-out that both Black Community Services Center (sponsor of the BLM and an actual entity of the university) and the BSU “suffer from inadequate funding.” Yet, the BSU received over 95 percent of its full funding request ($28,560) in Special Fee money this year—before refunds.

Although the BLM requested $6,000 from the General Fee fund (the maximum allowed), it only received $2,886. However, this amount is rather exorbitant considering it covers funding for 275 four-dollar posters. Meanwhile, the Stanford Black Pre-Law Society obtained $941 in General Fee money for its “BLM Program” and the Black Psychology Student Association received over $177 for similar events.

Overall, Stanford organizations spent over $6200 of student body money on Black Liberation Month expenses. However, by splitting the expenses among several groups, each allocation appears insignificant. Additionally, black-oriented student organizations receive the largest share of General Fee funding that goes towards ethnic-themed student organizations. A study done by The Review of General Fee appropriations before January 11, 2005, found that Black-oriented student groups receive 41 percent of the general fee money that goes to ethnic-themed student organizations. This is from data collected before the Senate allocated money to the BLM or Black Psychology Student Association on February 1.

Yet, only ten percent of Stanford undergraduates are African Americans. The Review identified groups as “ethnic-themed” if their activities primarily served a specific race. Dance groups, service-oriented groups, fraternities, and sororities were not designated as “ethnic-themed.” These ethnic-oriented groups in general are more successful at obtaining their budget requests than other groups. While ethnic organizations garnered 74 percent of their original budget requests, the average General Fee group only received 57 percent.

Although there are certainly a variety of factors influencing the success of a budget request, the large discrepancy is certainly striking.The BSU has not experienced the same success in the Special Fee arena. As Shakir noted, the Senate cut the BSU’s requested Special Fees budget by a significant amount. However, the BSU successfully petitioned the student body and will be balloted for its original request of $34,555. It is important to note that the Senate’s cut was largely the result of excessive food expenses.

The BSU allocated $19,605, or over 56 percent, of their budget for food. Two dinners, the Soul Food Dinner and Kwanzaa Celebration, are funded at $17.50 per person—more than double the ASSU’s accepted rate of $8 per person. Additionally, the BSU asked for over $13 per attendee for its Freshman Convocation.

Nevertheless, Brown came to the defense of appropriating large amounts for food: “Cultural groups tend to use more money for food, whereas publications use money to print publications, and other special fee groups spend a large amount on materials for highly specialized equipment. In the past years food has become a political buzz word and much rhetoric has sought to make it need justification. The Black Student Union puts on programs I’m really proud of and we get the best prices we can for food at our major cultural events.”Students will have a chance to voice their own opinions regarding the BSU’s food costs, Special Fees, ASSU senators, and Class Presidents by voting at ballot.stanford.edu this week. Five candidates for the ASSU Senate will be running that retain some type of affiliation with the BSU: Brittany Clark, Joslyn Massengale, Macarrin Morton, Krystle Shoate, and Dan Stringer.