Should extreme groups receive funding?

Great Debates
1

Although there is are many other examples of this, I’d like to focus on one group that has recently had an impact at my university. (The University of Melbourne)

There is an anti-corporation group at university called M1. It’s aligned with S11, a larger protest group that protested at last year’s Economic Forum in Melbourne. As far as I can see, their primary aim is to get more funding for the university and better conditions for teachers. There protest against many other things, like globalisation, economic rationalism and sweat shops, and while I don’t agree with their methods, I agree with some of their ultimate goals.

At the beginning of the year, M1’s antics appeared harmless (handing out fliers, peacefully protesting, etc.). Until now, the worst thing they did was burn an effigy of the Nike CEO which didn’t even look like him. (It was just a doll with “Nike CEO” scrawled on it - you’d think that they would be a bit more imaginative.) However, IMHO, last week, M1 crossed the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Having spray painted several surfaces around the university, including the ground, windows and sides of buildings, they occupied the Vice-Chancellors office for several hours.

Having broken through the door with an axe, around 75 students took over, forcing staff members to evacuate. They proceeded to vandalise the office, spray painting the walls, raiding the liquor cabinet and throwing confidential papers out the window to the bemused crowd below. All in all, over $100,000 damage was done, with some estimates as high as $200,000. Ironically, the students had been campaigning for more funding for the university - now at least $100,000 that could have benefitted the university will now go towards cleaning up their vandalism. That money has now been squandered due to their short-sightedness.

If you’re still with me here, I’ll add that M1 receives funding from the university, as they are officially a club on campus. I’ll also add that the incredibly large majority of students appear to be against their methods, and after last week’s debacle, there is a student movement petitioning the university to cease their funding.

So the great debate is: is M1 still entitled to receive funding from the university despite repeatedly vandalising university property and having alienated the majority of students? If so, why? If not, why not?

2

In this particular example, I think that everybody would agree that funding should be cut, based on the information that you provided, since members of the group were involved in large-scale criminal activity. The real question, as I see it, is where one draws the line when it comes to cutting funding. For example, if just one member of the group had been caught vandalizing an office, would that still be grounds for financial punsihment for the whole group? What about if ten percent of the group’s members were involved?

3

They oughta have their funds cut just for having such a stupid name.

Quite frankly, I’m more than a little surprised that a petition to end M1’s funding is even necessary. Isn’t this the definition of “biting the hand that feeds you”?

Sua

4

Well, the university does encourage freedom of expression/speech, although not to this extreme. Protesters from this group interrupted the Dean’s welcome to the first year students, and he responded quite graciously, saying that the university supported their right to protest. There may be a fear that by cutting their funding, the university will make them more extreme:

See? See? It’s the conspiracy by big business, the university, the Prime Minister and Bill Gates! It means that our cause must be worthwhile! In addition, perhaps the university is afraid of the bad publicity?

And ITR, I guess it would depend on whether the organisation itself had organised the vandalism. If it’s one lone idiot, then I don’t see any reason to punish the group, but if it’s a group-supported and organised event, then I say make them pay for damages and cut their funding.

5

In answer to the OP’s subject line–Should extreme groups receive funding?–I say yes; else who’s to define “extreme”?

In answer, too, to the actual scenario presented by the OP, which might be epitomized thus: Should M1 be subject to the consequences of its illegal actions?–the answer is, again, yes.

Your original question is one of general principals; the story you tell is of very specific actions that, presumably, have very specific legal consequences. What constitutes eligibility to receive such funding in the first place? Surely there’s something in the bylaws of the office that provides the funding that allows for rescinding that eligibility as a consequence of illegal activities?

6

Why is the university funding clubs at all? What’s wrong with bake sales, car washes and fundraisers?

7

Well, they have to do something with the excessive tuition fees (though that probably doesn’t apply to Australia).

Seriously, its part of the deal you get when you go to University. Most colleges consider clubs and the like as an extremely important part of their students’ education. This is particularly in keeping with the mission of liberal arts schools - the well-rounded, active person, etc.

Sua

8

You’re right, Sua, it doesn’t. :slight_smile: IIRC, if you’re an Australian citizen, the government subsidises most of your tuition - depending on what course you’re doing, tuition ranges from $3,500 - $5,500 AUD (halve that for American Dollars, by the way). ::insert grumble about the crappy Australian dollar::

Of course, if you’re a fee-paying (private) or overseas student, tuition is a lot more expensive.

I think this was an issue that M1 was protesting about that day, as the University of Melbourne (Private) is receiving increasingly more funds - funds that they thought should be diverted to the public university.

And lissener, I guess the point of my post was if “extreme” groups still receive government/institutional funding if they knowingly break the law? Is there a line that they should not cross? And what if the group provided positive externalities otherwise? (So if normally, M1 used their funding to help out at soup kitchens, created jobs for the homeless, or set up an organisation to help students with fee-paying problems).