Student Congress threw the College Republicans an unattainable bone last week, approving the group’s more than $20,000 request to host Ann Coulter, but not without one catch: a $15,000 loan. Such an immense sum lacked precedent and ran the risk of setting a dangerous precedent for future sessions of Student Congress. Student Body President Mary Cooper was right to not only veto the appropriations bill but criticize Student Congress for a loan that was “unrealistic.”
Her veto was the only recourse the College Republicans had to turn away the funding without spoiling any chance of starting over, as the group had hoped. Now that the College Republicans have avoided a precarious financial position and delayed Coulter’s speech, Student Congress owes them a fairer look — along with more funding — once both sides sit down to try again.
That will require Student Congress, a body that isn’t elected along any party lines, to toss aside whatever political bias it has and see the event for what it is: a conservative group’s good faith attempt at spurring a debate that otherwise would not happen on a predominantly liberal campus.
In defending the allocation, Student Congress member Leah Josephson said political beliefs were not a factor in the bill’s passage. But she and the rest of Student Congress didn’t give Greg Steele, the College Republicans’ chairman, much reason to believe that claim. No matter its excuse, Student Congress created the impression that it was hiding behind a loan to grant the necessary funds but, in effect, prevent Coulter from coming to UNC. The loan would have forced the College Republicans to take on the challenging task of raising funds for an event ex post facto rather than prepare for future speakers.
When the issue of funding the event resurfaces, Student Congress owes the College Republicans more fairness. And it owes the campus a discussion, no matter its objections to who’s starting it.
