Student Activity Fees; T. Klein

When I attended Swarthmore College from 1981 through 1985,I paid a $60semiannual activity fee to fund various clubs, societies, newsletters, and campus organizations. Thirteen hundred oth er students paid the same mandatory fee. The sum collected-$78,000 per semester was placed in an account and disbursed by a five person Budget Committee. If a group of students formed a new organization, gained approval from the dean of students, and obtained a faculty advis er, they could petition the Budget Committee for funds. Each club, society, newsletter, and organi zation petitioned the committee at least once each semester to secure an operating budget. After holding hearings, the committee would allocate money to the Movie Society, the Mountaineering Club, the Take~a-Professor-to-Lunch Program, the Women's Center, the Asian Students Society, the Christian Fellowship, the Young Americans for Freedom, and other campus groups.

During my undergraduate days at Swarth more, I circulated the idea among my acquain tances (one of whom was on the Budget CommitMr. Klein practices corporate and securities law in Palo Alto, California. 279 tee) that the committee be abolished and the mandatory student activity fee not be collected. Instead I reasoned, "Let each individual student speak to his friends and acquaintances, decide what interests they have in common, and see how much money they would like to devote to their common interests." When I attended the University of Chicago Law School from 1986through 1989,I again suggested that mandatory fees be eliminated in favor of a sys tem based on individual choice. When defending my idea at both schools, I was faced with questions such as: "Who will pay for the movies shown every Saturday?" "How willthe school maintain the diversity of clubs and organi zations?" "Who will support the school paper?"

"What if a student just spends his $60 on beer?" I answered each question in turn, often defend ing my program to groups of students hurling questions at me. I stated that the principal point was to respect each individual's freedom of choice over his own property. Each of us had relinquished this freedom under the system of centralized plan ning through the Budget Committee. I then addressed each empirical question as it was raised: The movie club will charge admission so that only those who attend will pay for movies; the diversity of clubs will be a function of actual interest and how much each individual decides to pay for his participation-certain clubs may fail for lack of support, others may come into exis tence; the school paper will have to support itself through advertising, alumni contributions, sub scriptions, and single-copy sales instead of through the current hidden tax on each student; if a student spends his money on beer, that is his own free choice, no matter how others may view it.

My answers generated many questions and much discussion. Luckily, I found support for my views from one of the economics professors at Swarthmore College and from like-minded stu dents at both Swarthmore and the University of Chicago. Unfortunately, funding centralization continues at Swarthmore, the University of Chicago, CUNY, and other college campuses. I hope that through the communication of the ideas of liberty,and per haps by the central planners' own missteps, such programs can be rooted out to allow freedom to flourish. D 280 Do Seat Belt Laws Work? by John Semmens M any states that have passed mandatory seat belt-use laws have required that evidence of the law's effectiveness be produced for the law to escape automatic expira tion. A recently published report-"Arizona Hos pital Costs for Seat Belt Use vs. Non-Use 1989, 1990,1991"-from the Governor's Officeof High way Safety purports to be the needed evidence for the extension of Arizona's seat belt law. Unfortu nately, these kinds of reports have neither asked nor answered the right questions.