OPINION: UCCS leader offends gays

Imagine if a group, say Campus Crusade for Christ, wanted to celebrate and honor "National Traditionalists for Heterosexuality Day." Now imagine those students wanted public money, paid by students at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, to fund the event. The event would promote and celebrate the tradition of monogamous sex between married women and men. By flaunting traditional man and woman relationships, the celebration would offend some people who think such relationships are no more valid than intimate woman and woman, or man and man relationships.

The public funds - representing fees that students are required to pay to attend school - could be distributed to this event only if a request were approved by the student council and the student body president. Now, imagine if the student body president grew up with two lesbian moms, and found the entire event offensive. Imagine if the president thought the event sent the wrong message about the university, coloring it as some kind of right-wing, religious institution that doesn't celebrate homosexuals and transgendered students or students from non-traditional homes.

Now go the next step, and imagine our fictitious president vetoing the funding bill, approved by the student council. Outrage would ensue. The religious right, among others, would be upset. Some traditionalists would call for the president's head. They would cast his decision as discrimination against heterosexuals.

But the president's signature is required for a reason. It's part of the checks and balances in the university's system of determining which events and programs get funds, and which do not. If the president were forced to sign, because not signing would cause offense, then what's the point in requiring a presidential signature?

Something similar has been playing out at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Only the roles are a bit reversed, from our fictional tale. A group called Spectrum - representing the interests of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students - planned festivities to celebrate National Coming Out Day. They applied to the Student Senate for $2,100, which the Senate approved. But established process requires the student body president's signature. He can sign, veto, or refuse to sign. By refusing to sign, the funding goes through, but not for five days.

Student Body President David Williams found the Coming Out event offensive, writing in an e-mail obtained by The Gazette: "I do not believe in the message and agenda that this club advocates for..."; and "I do not believe this event is beneficial to our campus..."; and "I believe our student fees could be put to better use."

Understandably, some gay, lesbian, transgendered students and their supporters were offended that Williams objected to the event. Spectrum co-chairwoman Crystal Duckhorn criticized Williams for not acting with "viewpoint neutrality." She said proposals that "meet the qualifications and guidelines" should be accepted by all involved, no matter what.

But here's the problem with that: Among the "qualifications and guidelines" for funding are the need to convince the Student Senate and the president that it's a good idea.

Student fees are not a bottomless well, so some will win and some will lose. In this case, the president wasn't convinced this was a good use of funds. If he's supposed to sign anything the Senate hands him, there's no point in requiring his signature. He was elected to represent the students, and he believed this was a poor use of their money on an event of questionable value. Despite that, he had the decency to forego his veto power and allowed the funding to go through without his approval. It was a mature way to handle the dilemma. The rules are written that way precisely to allow progress without forcing elected officials to forfeit their values.

"I was always taught you don't sign something if you have problems with it, and for this funding proposal I had enough issues and enough problems with it that I could not sign it," Williams said.

Duckhorn and other Spectrum members are considering a formal complaint of discrimination, and they may take steps they hope would prevent government representatives from allowing "personal views" to influence decisions. In other words, they believe their cause is so important, so above reproach, that they're entitled to public funds without scrutiny of process. Talk about self-righteous zeal!

So exactly which views, if not "personal views", are an executive or legislator supposed to use in making decisions? Had he signed the funding bill, it would have been a decision based in personal views, such as a belief that the event would be a good use of student funds. Or the "personal view" that his own moral objections to the event were irrelevant.

Or how about not signing any such bills, abiding a "personal view" that says an entire student body should not pay for special interest parties and events?

National Coming Out Day is understandably important to a great number of UCCS students. Gay, lesbian and transgendered students should be applauded for celebrating freedom from the oppression of hidden, secretive, and sometimes forbidden lives.

But our culture's growing support for sexual liberation doesn't mean that Spectrum is entitled to funding. And an executive decision against the subsidy resolution should not be considered a forbidden form of discrimination. If it is, then we must rid the university of an elective process that determines who will control the funds that are extorted through student fees. The school must, then, fund any organization that asks until the funds run out. Without the latitude for executive and administrative discrimination, nothing would prevent extremist groups - even white supremacists and anti-gay activists - from paying for events with student fees. So it's fine to disagree with the decision that Williams made. But it's counterproductive to disagree with his right and authority to make it.