Referendum discussion erupts on Instagram as RUSA, cultural, governing groups split
Entering the third week of its voting period, the Rutgers University Student Assembly's "Saving Organizational Funding" referendum has garnered increasingly heated debates in social media posts and comments from members of the Assembly and school governing councils.
Largely, professional school governing councils have advocated against the referendum, while identity-based councils and organizations have pushed for its passage.
One of the key differences between their relationships with the Assembly lies in how the four cultural councils — Asian Student Council, Queer Caucus, Latino Student Council and the United Black Council — as well as their organizations, are funded by the Assembly.
Meanwhile, governing councils split a portion of the student fee with the Assembly, with 80 percent of the split going to them and 20 percent going to the Assembly, as previously reported by The Daily Targum.
The Assembly has staunchly maintained the referendum's necessity to continue funding the growing number of clubs on campus and pursued a full-court effort through social media and outreach dating back to August, as previously reported by the Targum.
School governing councils remain at odds
The Engineering Governing Council (EGC), Mason Gross Student Governing Association (MGSGA), Rutgers Business Governing Association (RBGA), Pharmacy Governing Council (PGC) and SEBS Governing Council (SGC) issued a joint statement opposing the referendum on November 14.
The post, which has surpassed more than 70 comments at the time of publication, reads, "Vote no to raising student fees. It doesn't fund our students and clubs. It only funds RUSA. Our students pay but get nothing."
Sentiments around the increased pay without direct gain arise from the 80/20 split, not including the $15 increase, which would go directly to the Assembly's Allocations Board.
In contrast, the Douglass Governing Council, which is funded through the Assembly's allocations process, has vocalized its support for the referendum at Assembly meetings and hosted sessions on the matter with Assembly leaders.
Pro-referendum student leaders claim opponents are biased, misrepresenting information
Assembly leaders have weighed in to respond to anti-referendum comments on the governing councils' original statement, sometimes swapping between personal and professional accounts. Assembly President and School of Arts and Sciences senior Jack Ramirez, for example, used both.
From his personal account, he demanded that organizations, "stop spreading misinformation" about the referendum not supporting the Rutgers University Programming Association (RUPA) — a benefit the Assembly has emphasized throughout its messaging.
From his professional account, he wrote, "I've literally said multiple times as president (RUPA) is what (the referendum) is going towards. It's also in the bill — if it isn't, I'm saying it. I mean, (I do not know) how else you guys can twist my words and the truth."
While the original resolution about the referendum did not mention RUPA, Ramirez committed to passing an executive order that would cement how the group would receive funds from it in another comment. The order was approved by the Assembly approximately two weeks after the voting period began.
Assembly Vice President Kaia Dyckman and United Black Council Assembly Representative Edward Adu-Gyamfi, both School of Arts and Sciences seniors, also commented from their personal accounts. Dyckman echoed the Assembly's sentiments about the governing councils' stances being misleading, while Adu-Gyamfi engaged in a longer discourse with students.
His arguments spanned how he believes that the councils prioritize the well-being of their school above others, that they lack genuine unity and that arguing against the referendum on the grounds of financial reasons is meritless since students deal with increased charges on other parts of their term bills.
"Instead of being against something that in no way benefits students, you seem to be wholeheartedly against a solution aimed at alleviating part of the student struggle at Rutgers," he wrote.
Exchanges between the representative and two Mason Gross School of the Arts seniors — Brian Yumiguano, co-founder of the Rainbow Symphony, and Brandon Mejia, president of the school's Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) student organization — turned personal.
Adu-Gyamfi accused both students of yielding benefits of attending events hosted by various Latino student groups on campus, including the Latin American Student Organization (LASO), Latino Student Council (LSC) and Celebrating Latino Arts and Works (CLAW).
For example, he told Mejia to "take the time to research whether that may be the next time (he is) at an LSC-funded event, … at a LASO event, … do anything related to the CLAW or simply take the time to step outside of (his) little academic bubble and interact with other parts of (his) identity."
Adu-Gyamfi also accused Mejia of "grasping at straws" and told him that he was not capable of leading or representing the Mason Gross community due to how he perceived Mejia to be misleading them.
Notably, while both Mejia and Yumiguano have public references to their Latin American heritage, neither appear to have any public affiliations with any of the listed organizations.
The United Black Council account stepped in, calling anti-referendum commentators' stances "hypocritical" unless they never attended any Assembly-supported events and asked for the organizations to advocate for modifying the 80/20 split between the Assembly and councils to support cultural organizations.
Neither Adu-Gyamfi, the United Black Council nor Mejia responded to the Targum's request for comment at the time of publication.
In an interview with the Targum, Yumiguano further clarified they have infrequently attended events from those organizations in the past. Their inability to do so is due to their busy schedule — an argument repeatedly made by governing councils.
From their experiences, Yumiguano explained how many Mason Gross students do not have the capacity to attend non-Mason-Gross-organized events due to their rigorous curriculum. Rainbow Symphony, bolstered by the school's leadership and, in a limited capacity, by the Queer Caucus, was their first extracurricular in their third year of schooling.
"I'd love to involve myself outside (Mason Gross)," they wrote. "About any night I'm not rehearsing, I'm working. If I'm not working, I'm doing homework/practicing. By that point, I have no energy to even get up from bed. There are days I leave at 6:30 (a.m.) and get home at 1 a.m. just to do it all over again. Why do I have to pay more money for clubs I can't go to?"
Identity-based organizations posit funding issues result in erasure
Another emerging argument in the comment section of the governing councils' original post was grounded in identity suppression. Queer Caucus led this conversation, asserting that LGBTQ+ students exist in schools across campus and being anti-referendum is a form of LGBTQ+ erasure.
Their concerns on how the reduced funding decreases the availability of spaces and advocacy efforts for LGBTQ+ students across all of campus were further explained in a statement released by the organization on Instagram on November 15.
"It is deeply disappointing that the advancement of the Queer community is still a debate and that there is still a level of opposition that we must overcome," the caucus wrote.
These sentiments were echoed by Ish Sohal, co-president of the Asian Student Council and a School of Arts and Sciences senior.
She explained that because allocations can be contingent on membership and event attendance, organizations supporting larger subgroups within the larger Asian Pacific Islander Desi American (APIDA) community could survive with depleted funding. Organizations for minority populations within the APIDA community are unlikely to, which she said undermines the University's diversity.
"We want to be able to promote different cultures," she said. "The major cut in funding inhibits the ability for many new communities to come together and celebrate their heritage in the APIDA demographic, since they typically tend to be smaller and are receiving barely any monetary aid from (the Assembly) to support a new developing organization."
In their interview, Yumiguano weighed in on the arguments by the cultural councils regarding erasure and said the pro-referendum voices were opting to pursue belligerence rather than compassion. Anti-referendum commenters further asserted that the clubs they fund are open to students not affiliated with their schools, an argument formalized in a later statement.
Assembly bites back, publishes purported financial data
In a post from November 15 titled, "Why should the fee go directly to RUSA Allocations," the Assembly echoed its historical sentiments and released the purported exact dollar amounts recovered from the five governing councils.
The lowest reported takeback for the Spring 2024 semester was from MGSGA and totaled more than $71,700 and went as high as approximately $642,600 from RBGA.
The Assembly routinely recovers funds from the organizations it supports at the end of each semester. It does not fund the schools with the split, but statements from each council to the Targum provided more information and context.
MGSGA reported that the Assembly informed them that approximately $10,000 more than the expected 80/20 split would be allocated to them. The council, its advisors and the Student Activities Business Office (SABO) reported not receiving this money.
EGC weighed in further, explaining that the Assembly's information was incorrect, and for EGC in particular, the posted "unspent takebacks" were actually the council's total annual budget.
The council further explained that its takebacks actually only amass approximately 10 percent of its budget and that these takebacks are rolled over to allocate to its organizations the following semester. This is a similar process to MGSGA, PGC and SGC.
All five councils also flagged that the takebacks data should only be accessible to the SABO and the councils' leadership and advisors. The question they positioned is whether the Assembly is not complying with those regulations and the dangers this misuse presents.
In a statement to the Targum, Ramirez stated that the governing councils' data was not confidential for the Assembly, especially the treasurer who has "full oversight" of the student fee.
"Ensuring that any information we release regarding the fee is constitutional and in a commitment to transparency that we will continue to uphold," he wrote.
Further financial data about EGC in particular was not available in another Assembly post, which disclosed the amounts allegedly allocated toward the governing councils in the Spring 2024 semester.
Of these, MGSGA was purportedly allocated the lowest amount at $19,950 while RBGA was allocated the highest at $117,572.
The five governing councils referred to the release of this data, as well as how the situation was addressed by Assembly leadership, as defamatory and needless.
"(The Assembly's) actions to vilify the councils via their social media, calling us 'greedy' without having proper information, is counterproductive to reaching a conclusion that benefits all of our students," the councils explained.
In an effort to constructively address the Assembly's arguments, EGC claimed it tried to get in touch with Ramirez to request a meeting but was turned down because Ramirez felt attacked by other professional school students he had spoken to previously.
School councils move arguments in comments to formal statement
On Tuesday, the five governing councils released another joint public statement addressing some of the arguments made in the comment section. These were expanded upon in their aforementioned statements.
On how their students do not see the same benefits from the fee, all five councils shared how their clubs, many of which serve minority communities and largely remain open to every student regardless of major, assist their students in obtaining professional goals.
MGSGA and PGC further explained their students follow rigorous coursework that inhibits their ability to participate in Assembly-funded clubs. Notably, certain Mason Gross programs cap their participation in extracurriculars, resulting in their students not seeing the value in paying for what they cannot reap.
Meanwhile, RBGA's events were described to help students navigate rapid hiring cycles, and EGC's events were described to generate dedication and fulfillment of interests ranging from automobiles to service.
"Students in professional schools participate primarily in the clubs and programs within the professional schools," the five councils' statement read. "But this referendum would only support (the Assembly's) programs, despite our students paying for it. This is particularly frustrating given that many, if not the vast majority, of our clubs are open to non-professional school students."
The councils also explained the ramifications of the 80/20 split no longer being followed for the long term, as the Assembly's funding could continuously increase, but the councils' funding would remain static.
Should the referendum pass, the governing councils ask that the Assembly either abide by the split or not charge their students.
Some academic club leaders point to weaker need for funding to offer club events
Student leaders heading Assembly-funded organizations also shared their troubles with funding with the Targum, though some questioned whether these struggles warrant increasing the University's cost of attendance.
Deshik Iyengar, president of the Undergraduate Linguistics Club and a School of Arts and Sciences senior, discussed the challenges lack of funding has posed for events.
Iyengar said the organization canceled a United Nations trip to New York because it did not have enough money to cover the expenses for the 15 to 20 students in attendance. He then explained the money allocated for the trip now cannot be reallocated to fund other club events, and appeals made to the Assembly have not been acknowledged.
The club also could not accept a "higher-rated speaker" because it was given approximately $600 for its entire speaker series, Iyengar said. This was particularly frustrating for the club since it restricted opportunities available to club members.
These sentiments were echoed by John Thatcher, president of the Spanish Club and a School of Arts and Sciences senior.
Thatcher said the club's programming budget was heavily impacted this semester, resulting in it not being able to organize trips to flamenco shows and art museums or collaborations with other Latino organizations on campus.
When asked about whether the upcoming referendum would help, both conveyed their conflicting feelings.
Iyengar said it seemed academic clubs were getting snubbed in regard to the amount of money coming in, but that he does not believe raising fees is the best option.
"In theory, I'm going to say yes … but at what cost?" he said. "It is crazy … to think that the solution is to increase the student fee when you should be thinking about the distribution of the money you already get from the student fees."
